Letters to the president, address changes,
subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor
should be sent to the National Office.

Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five
dollars per year.
Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover
the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:

LEAD PHOTO/CAPTION: As we think of the
1996 NFB Convention, we are reminded of former meetings in California. We first
went to the Pacific coast with the San Francisco Convention of 1956. We were
in four hotels (room rates from $5-7 per night), and the banquet was held in
the Elks Building. In 1967 we returned to California, going this time to the
Statler Hilton in Los Angeles. In 1976 we went back to Los Angeles, and we stayed
at the Biltmore Hotel. We were too big for the Biltmore Ballroom, so our meetings
were held at the Convention Center. Some will remember 1976 for the election
of Jimmy Carter. Others will remember it for rampant inflation. For Federationists
it was the year of the banquet speech Blindness: Visions and Vultures. It was
one of the most successful banquets and one of the most successful conventions
we have ever had. Here is a picture of that banquet as we gathered in our thousands.
The 1996 convention at the Anaheim Hilton will be our fourth in California,
and it promises to be one of the biggest and best in Federation history. Don't
miss it!

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Kenneth Jernigan]

FURTHER
COMMENTS ABOUT MOBILITY

by Kenneth Jernigan

In the October 1995, issue of the Braille
Monitor we dealt at length with the subject of mobility for the blind. As
was expected, there was a considerable amount of reaction. Overwhelmingly it
was positive. However, there were a few exceptions. One or two individuals called
me dirty names and engaged in personal abuse. I made no response to the irrationals,
but others raised substantive questions that required consideration. In this
article we are publishing one of the most interesting exchanges of letters.
As always happens in such cases, I learned something in the process. The challenge
to my opinions caused me to refine my thinking and look again at what I had
said in the October issue. I hope you will find these letters interesting and
thought-provoking. I doubt that we will want to print anything else on the subject
for quite some time to come, but meanwhile we have a great deal to think about:

October 27, 1995

Dear Dr. Jernigan: I am writing in response
to remarks you made about guide-dog users in the October 1995 issue of the Braille
Monitor.

I have been aware of the anti-guide-dog
attitudes in the organization for years. Guide-dog users have often felt unwelcome
at national conventions. I have seldom seen a photograph of a guide-dog user
with their dog in the Braille Monitor, and I've never heard NFB leadership refer
to guide dogs when discussing independence. There was no conspiracy of silence
to spare feelings: NFB leadership and members have always made it very clear
that guide-dog users are not welcome and looked down upon in the National Federation
of the Blind. If there was a conspiracy of silence, it was among guide-dog users
who never asserted themselves to oppose this treatment by fellow Federationists,
in order to avoid division within the organization.

It is ironic that the NFB claims to be
fighting for equal rights and first-class citizenship for a minority (the blind),
and a minority within the NFB (guide-dog users) are called second-class citizens
by the organization's leader. Through the years you have compared the organized
blind movement to the civil rights movement. The general tone of your article
might be equated to the backlash which comes when a movement has made too much
progress and the majority, cane users in this case, feel threatened. See what
happens when you let a guide-dog user move into the neighborhood?

You say that guide dogs have few advantages
and many disadvantages. Naturally you would feel this way. You are a cane user.
That is why you choose to use a cane. A person decides to use a dog because
for them a guide dog has many advantages and few disadvantages. There is no
controversy here; it is simply freedom of choice. The danger lies in the fact
that the leadership of the organization holds one point of view which they are
trying to present as a doctrine. We are the National Federation of the Blind,
not the National Federation of White Cane Users. You have valid concerns and
many issues need to be worked out. However, a slanted and divisive presentation
in the Braille Monitor is not the way to handle it.

You pretend to be giving a balanced presentation,
when in reality you have stacked the deck when you led off with such an emotional
and divisive defense of the virtues of cane use. You have also used your status
and that of board members to tilt the scales in your favor.

You use examples like scratched floors
and vomit at a banquet to illustrate that guide dogs are unacceptable as a means
of mobility for the blind. I have seen cane users cause damage by knocking things
over that a dog would have walked around. This does not mean that people should
not use white canes.

At NFB conventions I have seen cane users
walk into walls, travel in circles, and engage in cane duels as they try to
pass one another going in opposite directions. I have never heard a guide-dog
user leap to the erroneous conclusion that all cane users are second-class citizens,
who burden all those around them, present a negative image of blindness to the
public, and will never be fully independent until they use a guide dog as their
primary mobility method.

You quoted "The Nature of Independence"
speech, and it is interesting that you stopped quoting it just before the following
line, and it is very obvious why you chose to omit it: "We absolutely must
not become so rigid and dogmatic about the means and precise details of achieving
independence that we make ourselves and everybody else around us miserable.
Down that road lies bigotry, as well as the loss of any real independence or
true normality." You have proven this with your remarks about guide-dog
users in the October Monitor. And in the speech were you only talking about
cane users and excluding those who use guide dogs? I think not, because later
on you say, "In conclusion, I say to each member of this organization,
hold your head high in the joy of accomplishment and the pride of independence,
but not because of dog or cane or human arm, and not because of your ability
to read Braille or use a computer. These are the trappings of independence and
not the substance of it. They should be learned and used when needed, but they
should be regarded only as means not ends. Our independence comes from within."
Marc Maurer hailed this as a ground-breaking speech, and I thought it was the
greatest speech you ever gave and would lead the way to true unity between cane
and guide-dog users. Have you forgotten these words, or have you decided that
they are no longer true? You have come very far from those sentiments when you
can write an article like the one in this Monitor.

There is another conspiracy of silence
which you are not aware of because it is directed to you as a cane user. Do
you really think the public always tells you the truth regarding what they think
about cane users? I have seen cane users walk into people and spill coffee on
them and the victim of this accident says, "That's all right; no harm done."
When a guide-dog user moves swiftly and accurately through a crowded concourse,
avoiding obstacles and people, it seems to me that this projects a more positive
image of blindness than the cane user who is moving more slowly, striking objects,
and hitting people in the ankles. The public agrees because I have heard people
say as much. An occasional mishap with a dog is far less damaging to the image
of blindness than daily cane crashing and bashing. As for being led around by
an animal, you seem to forget that the person works the dog. The dog does not
work the person.

As for the letter you quote at the end
of your article, the dog is not responsible for going to college, getting married,
etc. The independence using the dog brings is the important thing. I have heard
you and President Maurer speak many times about people who learned to use the
long white cane and subsequently accomplished great things. This is equally
true of guide-dog users. Why do you praise one and criticize the other?

There are some cane users and some guide-dog
users whose actions project a negative and stereotypical image of blindness.
There are other guide-dog users and cane users that project a positive image
of blindness, and carry themselves with dignity as proud, confident, and independent
Federationists. To make unfair generalizations about either group, that is,
cane users or guide-dog users, is cruel, unjustified, and counterproductive
to our common cause. Like their fellow white-cane users, guide-dog users know
who they are and they will never go back, even though the leaders and some members
of the National Federation of the Blind think they should.

Sincerely,

_________

"We absolutely must not become so rigid and dogmatic about
the means and precise details of achieving independence that
we make ourselves and everybody else around us miserable.
Down that road lies bigotry, as well as the loss of any real
independence or true normality."--Kenneth Jernigan, Dallas,
July 6, 1993

Dear Mr. Maurer: I am sending you a copy
of a letter I wrote to Dr. Jernigan regarding his recent article in the Monitor.
The discussion was not about "first class citizenship"; it was about
ridiculing a mobility technique of which he and the leadership of NFB disapprove.
There is much more at stake here than hurt feelings. It undermines the NFB's
role as an organization which speaks for and serves all blind people.

We are all very concerned about Braille
literacy. We demand that it be made available to all who need and want it, and
we attack those who point out unconvincing disadvantages, while ignoring obvious
advantages, to deprive us of it. As Carla so movingly states in our new video
on the subject, she should have been given the chance to make that choice for
herself, and it should not have been made for her.

People have the right to choose which
mobility technique is best for them. If someone feels that they can travel faster,
safer, and more comfortably with a guide dog, that is their decision to make.
Having made that choice, no one has the right to pass judgment on them by saying
that they will always be second-class citizens, will never be fully independent,
and are a burden to everyone around them.

The NFB has always discouraged guide-dog
use either explicitly or by excluding it from discussions about independence.
Now the leader of the organization has given his blessing to treat guide-dog
users as second class and to question their status as Federationists.

When a blind adult turns to the NFB for
help and advice, is the use of a guide dog given equal consideration as the
use of a cane as a primary mobility technique? I would guess not, after reading
the views of the NFB leadership on the subject. What if this individual would
benefit more by using a guide dog as do those who have already made this choice?
Such a person would not be presented with that as an equal alternative. If the
NFB and its training centers discourage the use of guide dogs, how is this different
from the teachers, agencies, and vocational counselors who discourage the use
of Braille for those who would benefit from it? The opinions of NFB leaders
and ridiculous isolated examples like scratched floors and vomit at a banquet
are not sufficient justification.

If these attitudes prevail, then the
NFB no longer speaks for or fully serves all the blind, and the organization
should change its name to the National Federation of White Cane Users.

I have put my PAC plan on hold, and I
hope others who agree with me will do the same. How can I continue to support
an organization which has become like the very agencies it has opposed for so
many years? I hope that the National Federation of the Blind will decide to
treat all its members as equals and not regard those who choose a different
mobility technique than its leaders as second- class citizens.

Sincerely,

"Hold your head high in the joy of accomplishment and the
pride of independence, but not because of dog or cane or
human arm, and not because of your ability to read Braille
or use a computer. These are the trappings of independence
and not the substance of it. They should be learned and used
when needed, but they should be regarded only as means not
ends. Our independence comes from within."--Kenneth
Jernigan, Dallas, July 6, 1993

___________

November 14, 1995

Dear ____________:

Under date of October 27, 1995, you sent
me a letter concerning my article in the October Braille Monitor. At
the same time, you sent a letter to President Maurer canceling your PAC plan.
I want to say a few things to you about your letters and my article.

You say that there is an "anti-guide-dog
attitude" in the Federation and that "guide-dog users have often felt
unwelcome at national conventions." There is not now nor has there ever
been an anti-guide-dog attitude on the part of the Federation. If so, why would
the Federation have permitted and even encouraged the establishment of a Guide
Dog Division? Why would we have spent money and resources fighting for the rights
of guide-dog users? Any time that a guide-dog user has been denied the right
to go to a restaurant, go to an amusement park, or go to anywhere else that
the public is invited, the Federation has come up to the line and been counted.
This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do. We will
continue to support the Guide Dog Division, and we will continue to defend the
rights of guide-dog users.

I hope you will reread the October Monitor
and look at it in perspective. An announcement was made at the meeting of
the Guide Dog Division at the convention last summer, saying that the Monitor
was going to deal with the subject of dogs, canes, and other travel techniques.
Those in attendance were invited to submit articles. Some did, and we printed
each and every one of them, regardless of the content and with very little editing.

The reaction to the October Monitor
has been overwhelmingly positive. Three or four people have written with
objections, and I have no doubt that there are at least some others who reacted
negatively but did not write. This was a topic that needed discussing. The evidence
can be found in the interest which has been evoked. Even more than indicating
agreement, most of those who commented expressed relief that the topic has finally
been brought out of the closet and into the realm of discussion.

In reviewing your letter, I have to wonder
whether you read all of my article or just part of it. Let me refresh your memory.
In one part I said:

The problem is not simple. Neither is the solution. Above
all, what I have said must be kept in perspective and seen
in proper context. The Federation as an organization and I
personally have fought for the rights of guide-dog users,
and that will continue. As I have already said, I use a
cane. The fact that there are disadvantages to the cane
should not mean that I cannot use it if I choose to do so or
that my fellow Federationists should not defend my right to
do it. The same is true of the use of a sighted person's
arm, or a dog. As I see it, there are real disadvantages to
using a dog, but others may see it differently. Regardless
of that, we have to be able to discuss our opinions freely,
but when the discussion is finished, we must join ranks and
defend each other's right to choose--and we must do it with
understanding and good will.

That is what I said in the October Monitor,
and that is what I still believe. In your letter you say that I call guide-dog
users second-class citizens. Since that is not what I think and not what I believe
I said, I would like to know how you arrive at your opinion. Perhaps you are
referring to that portion of my article which reads:

We are not just talking about methods of travel but about
basic philosophy. Moreover, even though we didn't plan it
that way, we have, by discussing this issue in these
circumstances, arrived at a crossroad in our organization's
development. Whatever the appearance or trappings, we are
not here just (or even primarily) talking about canes and
dogs. We are considering self-image, concepts of
independence, equal participation in society, and the very
notion of first-class citizenship.

That is what I said, and if you look
at it in context, it is a far cry from accusing guide-dog users of being second-class
citizens. You commented about my 1993 speech on the nature of independence.
Let me remind you of the circumstances which led up to the writing of that speech.

A number of the students at the Louisiana
Center for the Blind discussed the fact that I did not travel alone with a cane
at the 1992 NFB Convention but used a human arm. They didn't just think about
it and then write me individually. They publicly discussed the matter in their
classes and then wrote me a letter and asked me to justify myself.

What should I have done? Should I have
said that they were accusing me of being a second-class citizen, which in a
way they were? Should I have reacted with anger, attempting to get their attention
and teach them a lesson by canceling my PAC plan? Such behavior would have been
negative and counterproductive.

They were not attacking me as an individual,
but even if they had been, the question they raised deserved rational discussion
and dispassionate response. As I said in my 1993 speech, I probably do not travel
as skillfully as many of those who have received more intense and formal training.
It is hard to say whether we are being objective or emotional when we talk about
our own conduct. The question of the philosophical implications of using cane,
dog, human arm, or some other method of mobility is reasonable to consider.
It is something else to accuse each other of second-class citizenship.

In your letter to President Maurer you
say this: "When a blind adult turns to the NFB for help and advice, is
the use of a guide dog given equal consideration as the use of a cane as a primary
mobility technique? I would guess not . . . ." You go on to imply that
it is my obligation (and the obligation of all NFB leaders, and possibly members)
to recommend with absolute impartiality the use of cane or dog. You equate this
with our attitudes about the use of Braille. I don't agree.

With respect to Braille, I am perfectly
willing for people to argue about whether it is good or bad as much as they
like and to recommend whatever reading techniques they think are superior. They
can point out advantages and disadvantages to their hearts' content, but when
the day is done, I want every blind person who wants Braille to have the right
to have it. The fact that I believe that a blind person is better off using
Braille in certain situations does not mean that I don't want you or somebody
else to have a tape recorder or that I think you are second class for using
one. Neither does it mean that I have to tell every blind person who asks me
about it that I have no opinion concerning the relative advantages and disadvantages
of the different methods of reading. I feel and behave exactly the same way
when dealing with mobility.

I don't think that all travel techniques
are equally effective, and I don't intend to say that I do. But I do intend
to fight for the right of other blind persons to believe differently, to use
any technique that each of them wants to use, and to be treated with respect
in the process. I am obligated to treat my fellow Federationists with respect,
but I am not obligated to advocate what I do not believe to be the truth.

This is totally consistent with what
I said in the 1993 speech on the nature of independence. It is consistent with
what I have always said.

Let me make a few general observations
about the notion of first-class citizenship. We are told that seventy percent
of the blind of this country who are of working age are unemployed. Are those
who come within that seventy percent first-class citizens? In other words are
they able to achieve first-class status in society? As I said regarding techniques
of mobility, the answer is not simple. First- class citizenship means the freedom
to make meaningful choices and the ability to make those choices stick. If an
individual is unemployed and does not have some other source of income, it is
hard to see how he or she can be said to have first-class citizenship. But a
person who has inherited wealth or other plentiful financial resources is in
a different boat.

What about mobility? Independence in
travel probably means the ability to go where you want when you want without
so much inconvenience to yourself or others that the whole thing ceases to be
worth it. By this definition, probably nobody is completely independent, and
very few people are totally dependent.

How does this relate to the blind? The
two things that probably outrank all others in determining whether a blind person
can function as a first-class citizen involve mobility and reading--ease of
travel and ease of communication. What about the blind person who is totally
unable to travel alone? Can such a person achieve first-class citizenship? It
depends on what you mean and how you look at it. Certainly it is proper to discuss
it, and without getting angry or calling each other names.

I once knew a blind man who was totally unable to travel without assistance
but who had made enough money that he hired people to stay with him every waking
hour. He had the financial resources to go anywhere in the world that he liked,
and he did it. He went where and when he pleased, and he caused no inconvenience
to others. He was content with himself and the universe. Was he functioning
as a first-class citizen? Some would say no. I think I would say yes. This is
not the way I would choose to do it, but for him it worked--and it caused no
problems to others. But what about privacy? What about dignity and self-esteem?
As I have said, the question is not simple.

And while we are on the subject of such things, what about me? As I said in
my Dallas speech, I am perfectly capable of using a cane, but I often don't.
I frequently use a human arm. When I do, am I failing to function as a first-class
citizen? Whether I am or not, I think other blind people have a right (and if
they think I should behave otherwise, perhaps an obligation) to consider the
matter.

Moreover, unless they are personally
abusive about it, I think I should hear what they have to say and not lose my
temper in the process. Maybe I can teach something during the give-and-take--but
just as likely, maybe I can learn something. What better way to grow and broaden
my outlook than to let my ideas circulate in the marketplace of free discussion?
Let me emphasize again that I am not talking about name-calling or personal
abuse but the rational exchange of ideas among friends and colleagues--an exchange
of ideas vigorously pursued but not with bitterness-- pursued, indeed, with
love and respect. That is the way brothers and sisters should treat each other,
and that is the way they achieve real independence and first-class status--or,
at least, that is how I see it.

In this context I want to say one thing
more about the notion of first-class citizenship. There are those who hold that
if an individual is "free" in his or her own mind, it is not possible
to make that person a slave. Maybe so, but freedom loses a lot of its meaning
if somebody is standing over you with a whip. On the other hand, regardless
of money or position, the person who thinks like a slave is (at least to some
extent) just that--a slave. In my way of thinking, one way of expressing what
the National Federation of the Blind has been doing ever since its founding
is helping blind people get over the notion that they deserve to be treated
like inferiors. As we have often said, you must say a thing before you can believe
it, and you must believe it before it can come true. But if you say it often
enough and believe it strongly enough, and if it is morally right and reasonably
possible, it can and will come true. That is Federationism.

Let me now say something about the canceling
of your PAC plan. If you had done it because of financial need, I would have
no complaint. But that was not your reason. You did it because you didn't like
the views I expressed. Yet, if a guide-dog user (including you) has problems
in the future, my PAC money and the PAC money of other cane users (and, for
that matter, dog users) will be used to fight the battle.

Or maybe the problem is something else.
In a recent discussion a woman said that anybody else in the Federation has
a right to express their opinions on mobility techniques or anything else but
that I don't. I disagree with that. I think I am obligated to be considerate
and reasonable, but I am not obligated to keep silent and express no views.
When we arrive at that point, my usefulness to the organization will be at an
end, nostalgic instead of dynamic. I am not willing to be a mere figurehead
who is trotted out for ceremonial occasions and public statements. I have always
engaged in the give-and-take of Federation policy-making and debate, and I have
no intention of stopping doing it. If the Federation needs me at all, it needs
me as a live participant.

Against this background, let me say that
if my comments were clumsily put or poorly phrased, I apologize--but I cannot
apologize for seeking the truth or expressing my opinions. I have always respected
you, and I still do. I hope that you will reconsider what I said in my article
and, in fact, that you will think further about the totality of the questions
raised in the October Monitor. I do not insist that you hold my views
on every question, and I hope that you will accord me the same right. That is
what the Federation is about, and that is also incidentally what first-class
citizenship is about.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Jernigan
President Emeritus
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

__________

November 15, 1995

Dear Dr. Jernigan:

Thank you for responding at length to
my letters. My letter to Mr. Maurer dated yesterday was written before receiving
your fax, and I decided to let it stand as it was and not to make any changes
in light of your remarks.

I do not intend this note to be a full
response to your letter. I simply want to make a list of points that I would
like you to know, and I will write you a longer and more formal letter at a
later time.

1) Your tone in the letter seemed to
me to be very different from that of the Monitor article. It sounded
more like "The Nature of Independence" speech, which I admire so much.

2) When you give your views, they may easily be seen as a
statement of the organization. However I do appreciate
your point that you have a right to an opinion like
everyone else and should not have to forfeit that
right.

3) I did not stop PAC merely because I did not like
hearing a different point of view from my own. I
sincerely feel that if the NFB considers guide-dog use
to not be as respectable as cane use, then I cannot
support an organization that holds that view, and I am
free to make that choice. When I feel that the NFB does
affirm that guide-dog use is as respectable as cane
use, then I will continue to support the organization
wholeheartedly.

4) Consider the following:

a) Independence is the ability to go where you want when you want without inconvenience
to yourself or others.
b) There is no way that the dog user can help causing problems to other people.
c) Guide-dog users are not independent.

You espouse a) and b) and so I conclude
c). I do not see how I can escape that conclusion. You tell me that you are
not saying this, but I need to somehow reconcile all of these remarks. I hope
you will be able to help me do so.

5) I think I made some valid points to you in my first
letter, but they may have been lost due to the hostile
presentation. I hope we will be able to further discuss
these points at a future time.

6) I recommend a dialogue in person, not necessarily with
me but with guide-dog users. I think such a discussion
would be more fruitful than an exchange of letters or
Monitor articles. By the way, not that it matters, but
I am a cane user.

I will write again to discuss these matters further.

Sincerely,

_________

November 20, 1995

Dear __________:

This will respond to your letter of November
15, 1995. You say in part: "Consider the following: a) Independence is
the ability to go where you want when you want without inconvenience to yourself
or others. b) There is no way that the dog user can help causing problems to
other people. c) Guide-dog users are not independent. You espouse a) and b),
and so I conclude c). I do not see how I can escape that conclusion."

_____________, that is what you say,
and your point a) comes from my speech on the nature of independence. Taken
by itself and out of context, it may appear to be talking primarily about guide-dog
users; but if you read the rest of the paragraph, it is clear that I am talking
about everybody, blind and sighted alike. Here are my exact words:

As to travel, independence is the ability to go where you
want when you want without inconvenience to yourself or
others. Probably none of us (blind or sighted) ever fully
achieves that goal all of the time--and almost all of us
achieve at least some of it some of the time. Usually we are
on a continuum.

That is what I said, and if you will
reread my article in the October Monitor, you will find this sentence:
"In fact, any form of travel by anybody (blind and sighted alike) poses
problems."

___________, the discussion that you
and I have been having has caused me to do some careful analysis. It has also
helped me refine my thinking. As a result, let me talk to you about four concepts
that we in the Federation often use:

1) It is respectable to be blind

2) Equal participation in society

3) First-class status in society

4) The blind as first-class citizens

When we say that it is respectable to
be blind, I think we mean how we feel within ourselves. We mean that we should
not be ashamed of our blindness, that we should not try to hide it, and that
we have as much innate worth as anybody else. In other words, we are talking
about attitudes--our own, not somebody else's.

When we say that we have the right to
equal participation in society, we are talking about our capacity to compete
on terms of equality with others. The concept implies the right to adequate
training and the ability to acquire the financial means to live a good life
and to do the things that others do who are similarly situated.

When we say that we have the right to
first-class status in society, we are not talking about our own attitudes but
about the attitudes of others. We are saying that it is not enough for us to
have ability or even money. We must also have understanding from and acceptance
by the general public, the recognition that we are capable and deserving of
the rights and privileges accorded to everybody else. If we don't have this
acceptance and recognition, we cannot have first-class status, and we cannot
have equal participation in society regardless of our capacity or resources.
I dealt with these things at length in my 1985 speech on the patterns of freedom.

Finally we come to the concept of first-class
citizenship. What does it mean? It is a term that we frequently use, but as
I think about it, it is not easy to define. It probably implies all of the three
concepts I have already mentioned plus others, many of them intangible. Whatever
it is, all of us seem to want it, and we feel considerable unhappiness and anger
if anybody implies that we don't deserve it or that it should be taken away
from us. Effective though the term may be for speech-making, it lacks precision.

So let me stay with the other concepts--that
it is respectable to be blind, that we are capable and deserving of equal participation
in society, and that we are determined to have first-class status. If we get
all of those, we probably won't have to worry about first-class citizenship.
It will take care of itself. In this context maybe I should have used the term
first-class status in society in my October article instead of the term first-class
citizenship. If you will reread the article, you will see that I did not express
the opinion that a blind person who uses a dog cannot achieve first-class status.
I said (and I made it clear that I was expressing my own personal opinion) that
I thought some of the obstacles were "almost" insurmountable.

To those who express resentment at my
opinion, I can only repeat that there are real disadvantages to any form of
travel now available to us. In our march toward equal participation and first-class
status in society we who are blind have repeatedly faced and overcome almost
insurmountable obstacles. Recognizing and discussing this fact and considering
the relative merits of different forms of mobility, methods of reading, or techniques
of daily living should not occasion anger or personal abuse. Rather, we should
feel able (in fact, we should want) to examine these questions in the hope of
increasing our understanding and enlarging our opportunities.

What I was saying in the October Monitor
is simply this: we frequently talk about our choice of mobility techniques as
if our choice affects only us and is nobody else's business. I think this is
not true and that the question is a proper topic for discussion.

The disadvantages in using a dog are
not made less by pointing out the disadvantages in using a cane. The opposite
is also true, of course. The disadvantages of cane use are not diminished by
pointing out the disadvantages of using a dog. The same is also true of using
a human arm, present-day experimental technologies, or something else. In each
case the technique must be judged on its own merit, and it is not just something
that affects the individual who is making the choice. It affects the rest of
us who are blind, and it also affects our sighted associates. Even so, the final
choice must be made by each individual blind person, and the rest of us have
to respect that choice. That does not mean that we cannot or should not discuss
the relative advantages and disadvantages or that we should not form opinions.

As to independence, it is perfectly obvious
that none of us has it completely or all of the time. And that is true whether
we use canes, dogs, or something else. It is also true of the sighted. The question
is not do we have independence, but how much of it do we have, and at what cost?
As I said before, it is a matter of cost/benefit ratio. What we want is enough
independence to achieve equal participation and first-class status in society,
enough that we can realistically feel that it is respectable to be blind.

As I have already said, the Federation
has consistently fought to protect the rights of guide-dog users, and we will
continue to do so. We encouraged and supported the establishment of the Guide
Dog Division, and that encouragement and support will continue.

As to those few who have engaged in name-calling
instead of dealing with the issues, I think they are not doing their cause any
good. It is foolishness to say that if a blind person has not used a dog, that
person is not entitled to an opinion about the matter. It is equally unproductive
to take such attitudes about those who have not learned to use a cane. There
is no obligation personally to experience something before having an opinion
about it. We depend on reason, observation, and the comments of people around
us for our decisions every day. I have never taken heroin, for instance, or
had ten million dollars, but I have definite opinions about the advantages and
disadvantages of both. Usually we engage in name-calling and personal abuse
when we feel that our case is weak and lacks merit.

One final thing: I recognize that cane
travel is not a perfect mobility technique. As with dogs, the fact that some
cane users are poorly trained or inefficient does not speak to the overall usefulness
or lack of usefulness of the technique. Ultimately, technology may give us something
superior to both cane and dog--and, for that matter, human arm. If that day
comes, there will undoubtedly be those who will both resent and resist the change,
saying that the techies have no right to an opinion because they are not proficient
in the techniques they are discussing. Who knows--maybe I will be among their
number. Meanwhile, I shall hunt for the truth as best I can, and I shall certainly
express my opinions when I think they are worth stating.

Sincerely,

Kenneth JerniganPresident Emeritus
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

[PHOTO/CAPTION: David Andrews]

HOW
FAST IS IT REALLY?

by David Andrews

From the Editor: One of the most
exciting aspects of the recent technology revolution for the blind is our increasing
access to Braille. Using a personal computer, a Braille-translation program,
and a printer that generates Braille rather than ink-print, almost anyone can
now produce readable Grade II Braille. The result is that virtually any computer
text file can today be produced in Braille by the insertion of a few formatting
commands that do not require any knowledge of Braille.

The quality of the Braille turned
out by this process depends in large part on the printer (called an embosser).
How clear is the Braille it produces? How well does it stand up to the demands
made on it? And, of course, how rapidly does it print a document? As the price
of embossers drops, more and more individuals and organizations can consider
actually investing in such equipment. Deciding which one to buy gets harder
as the choices multiply. Every manufacturer should be prepared to provide samples
of the Braille produced by its embossers, and with a little investigation one
can learn about the reliability of the equipment other people have purchased
and the dealers in the area. These are subjective measures, but they are important
matters to consider.

The question of the speed of Braille
production is a different matter. For years manufacturers have been reporting
embosser speed in characters produced per second. How accurate are their claims?
How does each embosser stack up against its competition? Potential buyers need
objective information in order to make sound decisions.

Enter the International Braille and
Technology Center for the Blind (IBTC). While David Andrews was still director
of the IBTC (he is now with the Minnesota Agency for the Blind), he conducted
tests to determine the accuracy of manufacturer ratings of the speed of their
embossers. The following article is the result. Here it is:

People who are buying a Braille embosser (printer) and
who consult the International Braille and Technology Center
for the Blind always ask us two questions: how much does it
cost, and how fast does it print--not necessarily in that
order. Until now, the speed figures we have given them are
those published by the manufacturers or distributors
themselves. While we thought that some of those figures
might be exaggerated slightly, we did not know by how much,
so we decided to find out.

The Test

We began by devising a test--that is,
producing a Braille file that could be sent to all the printers. Our goal was
to devise a test that, while hard, was also a real-life document.

We chose the July 1995, issue of the
Braille Monitor. We used a leading Braille translation program, the Duxbury
Braille Translator Version 10.1, to produce a Grade II translated and formatted
file. Our test file contained straight text and other styles that occurred naturally
or that we added. These included regular and outdented paragraphs, partially
and fully blank pages, centered and right-justified lines, two columns of words,
print and Braille page numbering, lines of dots and table-of-contents guide
dots, and more. We chose to include a range of formatting and layout variations
because different embossers handle these complications in different ways, some
more efficiently than others.

We also decided to place twenty-five
40-character lines of text on each page. While some printers will print up to
27 lines and/or 44 characters a line on an 11-by-11.5-inch page, we chose to
use less ambitious requirements. First, the 25-line-by-40-cell page is commonly
used, so it represents a real-life test. Second, while some printers can emboss
more than 40 cells on a line, not all can. But with the exception of the Braille
Blazer, which can print only 34 cells a line, all units can produce 40-cell
lines. Consequently, by using a 40-cell line, we had a basis of comparison.
We formatted the Blazer test for 32 cells, which allowed room for binding, as
was done in the other tests. We also had to format the Ohtsuki BT-5000 file
for 19 lines since it will not print 25 on a page. This machine embosses both
print and Braille on the same page, which takes more room.

Finally, using the 25-line by 40-cell
page, the file we generated using Duxbury was 187 pages in length--long enough
to even things out. Of course the Blazer and Ohtsuki files contained more pages,
but the same amount of data.

The appropriate test file was then sent
to the embosser. The "PRINT" command was used from the MS-DOS command
line, and the already-translated file was sent. This combination allowed a more
accurate measurement of embossing time than other methods that could have been
used. The timer was started at the same instant that the "Return"
("Enter") key was pressed on the computer. One of the Braille 'n Speak
family of products from Blazie Engineering--Braille 'n Speak, Type 'n Speak,
or Braille Lite--was used to time all tests. The timer was stopped as the embosser
ceased printing. The resulting time was converted into seconds and divided by
the size of the file, yielding a characters-per-second rating.

What follows is an alphabetical list
of all the tested embossers and what they did. The "CPS" acronym stands
for "characters per second" and "IBTC" stands for the International
Braille and Technology Center for the Blind."

As you can see from these data, the
results we obtained from some of the printers varied greatly from their manufacturers'
published figures. There are a number of reasons for this variation, some of
which are understandable and acceptable, and some of which are not. First, remember
that manufacturers naturally rate their machines in the way that shows them
in the best light. While this is understandable and mostly acceptable, we think
that some of them have gone too far and should revise their figures. One long-time
marketing executive in the printer field said to us, "Lots of mud is going
to be slung here, and some of it will stick to us all, but we [the embosser
producers] will be better off for it in the long run."

A number of embossers, such as the BookMaker
and the Braille Express from Enabling Technologies, take approximately the same
time to print a line, whether there are 30 characters on it or 44. Since these
printers will print up to 44 characters on a line, the manufacturer naturally
computes the CPS rating using the longer line, which raises the rating. Thus
our results, which are based on a 40-character line length, should legitimately
be increased by at least 10 percent, making our figures very close to Enabling's.

Other manufacturers may measure only
a single Braille page of text because the page change takes time. We suspect
that this is in part how Index arrived at its initially unrealistically high
rating of the original Everest. Still others use a burst rate--timing the printing
of just one line. This is what Blazie Engineering did with the Blazer, according
to Deane Blazie.

Putting it into Perspective

What follow are our observations concerning
individual embossers as well as information we believe necessary to interpret
the individual results. Please remember that printing speed is only one aspect
of choosing a Braille embosser. Others include price; quality of Braille produced;
reputation of manufacturer; reliability; reputation of local dealer; past experience;
availability of timely service and support; ease of operation; clear and understandable
documentation; manuals available in well-formatted, Grade II Braille; and more.

The manufacturer-provided speed figure
for the Braille Blazer is a bit optimistic and should be reduced in our opinion.
While a good deal of variance from our test can be expected, a 47 percent difference
seems too much to us. Prior to testing, our hypothesis was that a 10 percent
variance would be acceptable. After conducting the tests, we now conclude that
a 20 percent variation is probably acceptable, although less is better. As already
pointed out, at least a 10 percent variance can legitimately be accounted for
in some cases.

The Braille BookMaker from Enabling Technologies
is one of the units that was rated by its manufacturer using a 44-cell line,
so its 80 CPS rating is not unrealistic. We were surprised by how close the
Braillo 200 came to its rated speed and how far off the Braillo 400S was from
its rated speed. With a 31 percent variance, a re-rating by Braillo Norway might
be in order. A 350 CPS rating would make more sense. The Braille Comet missed
its mark because it is slow in moving paper when going to a new page from a
partially printed page. The Braille Express and the Express 100 were both rated
by Enabling Technologies using a 44-cell line, so their figures are not as different
from ours as would first appear. The Elekul-03 came fairly close to its manufacturer's
rating; in fact its speed is directly related to the voltage of the electrical
supply. Since ours is on the low side of average, the speed could be increased
by raising the voltage.

The Everest-D (originally sold exclusively
by Telesensory) has two figures listed: 100 and 60 CPS. When it was introduced
in 1992, Index and Telesensory both widely touted its 100 CPS figure. As you
can see from our results (51.7 CPS and a 48 percent variance) its actual performance
doesn't even come close. In June of 1995 Index published a newsletter in which
it provided speed figures for all their printers. Interestingly enough, all
figures were lower--considerably so in some cases--than those previously published.
Even figures for embossers the company no longer manufactures were adjusted
downward. Further, Index has developed its own speed test and has been circulating
it to other printer manufacturers in an attempt to get all of them to use the
test. At least one company (Enabling Technologies) has resisted, feeling, they
say, that the testing should be done by an independent entity like the International
Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. They also believe that the test
was devised so as to put Index products in the best light.

We have looked at the Index test and
have even run it on a few machines. It yields faster times than the IBTC-developed
test. While it is not a bad one, we concluded that it wasn't very realistic.
It was almost entirely straight text with most lines filled. It also included
no form feeds, leaving page breaks to the embosser which, with most machines,
is usually faster. However, most Braille translation programs insert form feeds
so that they can control page size, accurately supply page numbers, and easily
change page sizes.

One Braille translator author described
Index's revised figures as "preemptive revisionism." Index knew we
were working on printer speed ratings and has very recently publicly revised
its figures to be more realistic. While these are now quite accurate and more
realistic than those of many and though the efforts of Index to get a handle
on measured printer speeds are laudable, the fact still remains that in the
past, and for a long time, Index used some very inflated figures. We can only
hope that everyone will start using more realistic figures now that attention
has been drawn to this issue.

Other Index embossers tested include
the new Everest-D and the Index Basic. The new Everest came relatively close
to its revised rating of 79 CPS. The Index Basic missed its rating by an unacceptable
level. Index has marketed the embosser as a 50-CPS machine for years, touting
it as faster than the competition, the Romeo RB-40 and the VersaPoint. At 28.5
CPS, it is little faster than the others, particularly the Romeo, which we rated
at 28.1 CPS. Its revised rating of 40 CPS is more realistic than before, but
its 29 percent variance is still too high.

According to Enabling Technologies, the
Juliet prints one line per second. Since it can print up to a 56-character line,
its potential speed can be as high as 56 CPS. We found that the machine comes
acceptably close to its published rating.

Also the Marathon, Ohtsuki, and Porta-Thiel
come reasonably close to their published specifications. As an interesting aside,
the Ohtsuki took over 7 hours to run the printing test. The quickest machine
ran it in just under 9.5 minutes.

The Resus RS-214, which is no longer
available, missed its specifications by a little more than we would have preferred.
It seems a bit slow in moving paper through blank lines. The Romeo RB-40 is
not rated accurately. The machine misses its mark by 30 percent. A longer line
might have helped it a little, but not much. The RB-20 and the RB-25, on the
other hand, came quite close to their published specifications. The RB-25 in
particular represents a good bargain. For $1,100 less than the RB-40, you sacrifice
only 4.3 CPS, and the Braille quality is quite good. The RB-20 is primarily
marketed to sign makers now. Some components have been strengthened to allow
it to emboss on light metal and plastic materials reliably.

The Ted 600 was originally rated at 450 CPS. The manufacturer later slowed down
the machine to make it more reliable. They estimate the slowed-down version
at 350 CPS, and at 295.2 CPS we consider our rating to be in line with theirs.

The Thiel BAX-10 was a disappointment, while the Beta X/3 was quite near its
published figure. Considering its 183 CPS and a 39 percent variance figure,
the BAX-10 should be re-rated.

The Thomas is another one of Enabling's new printers that comes quite close
to its published figure, produces good Braille, and is a good bargain. Finally,
the VersaPoint missed its mark by a good deal. It is slower than the Romeo RB-40,
which is its main competition. At 27.4 CPS and a 32 percent variance, it should
be reclassified by Telesensory.

Conclusions

While we have devoted a good deal of
time and energy to rating Braille embossers, we reiterate that speed is only
one consideration in making a printer decision. The actual numbers themselves
are probably not as important as their comparisons to each other. It is more
important to know that the Romeo RB-40 is slightly faster than the VersaPoint
or that the Braillo 200 is faster than the Thiel Bax-10 (which is considerably
more expensive) than it is to remember the exact numbers. Also, as noted earlier,
there are other factors which should be considered.

In addition to the speed ratings, we have provided a dollar-per-CPS figure.
While it is hard to resist this measure, it does involve a couple of dangers.
First, there is a tendency (especially by government types who are writing specifications
for equipment bids) to use measures like this as their sole means of decision-making.
These measures do not take into account Braille quality and other important
factors. Second, when designing a printer, the manufacturer has to make certain
tradeoffs and compromises. It may be possible to gain some apparent speed by
using a shorter line--at the cost of flexibility. And an embosser employing
a long line and rated by a conservative but arduous test such as that developed
by the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind may look more
unattractive than it actually is. In short, a variety of factors should be considered
and balanced when making the decision to buy an embosser.

The prices of Braille printers have dropped over the past few years. There are
also many more models available now than formerly. However, past a certain point,
the only way to achieve more speed or lower price is to sacrifice the quality
of the Braille produced. While we applaud consumer choice and lower prices,
we do not want to see the quality of the Braille produced by computer-driven
embossers reduced dramatically.

We urge the Braille printer industry to take a new look at measuring embosser
speed. While we may not have designed the definitive speed test, we do believe
that we have designed a fair, real-life test that can be used to draw valid
comparisons. We also urge consumers, agencies, and government entities not to
look only at our speed figures when making purchasing decisions. They are a
useful comparison and guide, but they should be only one of many considerations.

The data presented here, while interesting, do not represent complete reviews
of the Braille printers. However, the NFB's International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind has been working as a sub-contractor on a Braille Literacy
Training grant that was awarded to the American Printing House for the Blind
(APH) by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).
Among other activities in connection with the NIDRR grant, the International
Braille and Technology Center for the Blind has now reviewed all of its Braille-related
technology. The resulting document is being published in ink-print and Braille
by APH and electronically by the National Federation of the Blind. By the time
you read this article, the entire report should be available.

For more information about Braille embossers, translation software, or other
technology matters, call the International Braille and Technology Center for
the Blind. You can reach us afternoons at (410) 659-9314. You can also reach
us via NFB NET, the NFB's computer bulletin board service, by calling (612)
696-1975.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Peggy Elliott]

A
FABLE FOR OUR TIMES: TALKING SENSE ABOUT TRUNCATED DOMES

by Peggy Pinder Elliott

From the Editor: We keep trying to
explain to our sighted colleagues that the biggest problem of blindness is not
that we can't see. It is, rather, what we ourselves and the people around us
think about blindness and the limitations it imposes. The dictionary definition
of the word blind and its metaphorical use in our language show what most people
think. But here is yet another angle on what it means to be blind: You get studied.
There is a class of so-called professionals who make their living and, it would
seem, draw their meaning in life from studying blind people.

The latest proposals come from a private consultant hired by the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to advise it on what further research,
if any, should be done on the subject of truncated domes. From past reports
in the Braille Monitor, one would have thought that the studies had all
been done and that the enacting (or rather the de-enacting) of those absurd
truncated-dome regulations should be well under way by now. Not so, according
to the experts assembled by the private consultant. Their opinion is that much
is left to study. This should not be surprising when one considers that one
of the leading proponents of truncated domes, a professor who has received thousands
in grant money through the years to study the blind, was a member of the panel
of so-called experts making the recommendation.

Peggy Elliott, Second Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind
and known for her work on truncated domes, was asked to comment on these research
proposals. Here is the reply she made:

Useful research only flows from correct identification
of a problem and complete canvassing of solutions to it. I
don't see either of these prerequisites in the material from
the Project Action task force. Perhaps the best way I can
make my point is to offer a fable.

Fable

In the early nineteenth century in this country,
literacy experts convened. They were aware that most
Americans could not read and write. This troubled them, and
they constituted themselves as a task force.

Task force members agreed without even needing to
discuss the matter that illiteracy would be a fact of
American life forever. This was true due to numerous
shortages--books, paper, teachers, and learning time, which
was absorbed by the urgent need of the economy for workers
of all ages, leaving them without spare time in which to
learn. Illiteracy was understood to be here to stay.

The experts swung into action. They recommended
research on numerous topics aimed at finding
language-neutral solutions to information problems. For
example, they recommended research into standardizing the
use of pictograms instead of writing on all signs. Numerous
innovative methods of handling information were proposed.
One was to address the unemployment problem by having
uniformed officials at major intersections to give
directions to people who could not read maps. The experts
left the meeting, satisfied that they had handled a tough
job superbly and happy that they had found a way to deal
with illiteracy.

There were some critics of the report. Some said that
changing the whole world to address illiteracy was putting
the cart before the horse. These critics said that the way
to solve the problem of illiteracy was to teach people to
read. Once literacy starts to spread, it feeds upon itself.
Lack of literacy skills isolates and excludes the illiterate
in a society based on literacy. Why not expect literacy of
everyone rather than dooming most citizens to illiteracy by
(1) refusing to emphasize teaching and (2) reorienting the
world to assume widespread illiteracy?

Of course, the report had its supporters within the
illiteracy community. There were those who stood up and
proclaimed how included they felt now that illiteracy was
recognized as just another one of those characteristics some
citizens have. These illiterates thanked the experts over
and over for making illiterates feel welcome, for including
them, and for finally addressing their needs.

Not much was heard from the hundreds of thousands of
men, women, and children who were struggling at night after
the chores were done to learn to read the family Bible or a
tattered primer. These learners were too busy learning to
take part in the national debate. But their way prevailed.

My point in telling this fable is to
try to add some perspective to this much-plowed ground. It is radically untrue
that no research has been done in the area of efficient travel by blind persons.
Rather, it has been studied to death. Yet the studies never seem to resolve
anything. Why?

Because the wrong questions are being studied and the wrong solutions proposed,
as in the fable.

The first problem is that there isn't one--not the way the research proposal
defines it. The problem is defined as an acute lack of information at every
point along a blind person's path--information that is readily available to
sighted pedestrians. This is just not true. Thousands and thousands and thousands
of blind people walk around this country every day, going about their lawful
rounds, attending meetings and workshops, going to church or to the store, holding
jobs that include travel. These blind men and women do not think about the details
that the research proposal seeks to examine. They're too busy getting where
they are going, taking care of business, moving on.

As in the fable, we have two entirely different views of the present which imply
two completely divergent views of the future. One view holds that blind people
are sunk without massive external help. The other is that we can and do participate
right now in the world as it is. In the fable the experts in illiteracy believed
that no change would occur because they viewed the illiterates as beneath them
and also because the experts were not thinking in social terms. But the social
fact is that many blind people travel efficiently today, proving that virtually
all blind people are capable of learning to do so.

One additional factor comes into play here. Human subject research is notoriously
unreliable, and it is notoriously subject to the Heisenberg effect--that the
person being studied will change behavior while under scrutiny. Added to these
vagaries are two more strands of thought. One is that it is very hard to research
something when the standards are both imprecise and shifting. We can tell if
a virus is dead in a lab dish, but we cannot tell when a blind person is comfortable
or skilled or neither. All research to date has been flawed because there is
no externally applied objective standard against which we can judge outcome.
And, in addition, the researchers in this area are all themselves sighted persons
who work mostly with those who are learning to get around as blind people. In
other words, the image in their minds is formed from a sighted point of view
and comprised of people who necessarily have little or no skill. What about
the thousands and thousands and thousands of blind persons who do have the skill?

And, while we're on the subject, where did competent blind people get the skill
they have? Most will tell you that they got their skill from other blind people--either
by watching them do successfully what they themselves have not yet done or by
asking for tips and pointers on more efficient techniques. For example, every
capable blind traveler will tell you that successful travel ultimately depends
on the length of cane; the cane, when stood with the tip on the floor, should
reach to the blind person's chin or higher. Yet most professionals deal out
canes that rise to the person's diaphragm or sternum, dooming the traveler to
poor posture and tardy, insufficient information and therefore poor travel skills.
Efficient techniques pass from blind person to blind person; the self-proclaimed
experts are never involved and probably don't even know that their teaching
is routinely overridden and abandoned by experienced travelers.

What is left out of the research proposal is perspective. Like the experts in
the fable, these experts would freeze the blind community in its current state
of knowledge and development. They would hold that no improvement is possible
and rebuild the world to address the profound deficiencies now perceived to
be experienced by blind people as a class. But they have addressed the wrong
problem. The problem should be defined as learning why some blind people travel
safely and efficiently and others don't. As in the fable, the ones who do have
taken the initiative on their own to seek out and learn what they needed to
know. And, I might add, they didn't learn it from professionally trained orientation
and mobility teachers.

Perhaps a good way of making this point is to mention a piece of Dr. Bentzen's
research done several years ago. She discovered that many of the test subjects
she was using did not know about curb ramps, did not even know they existed,
and were fooled by them every time. Dr. Bentzen gently remarks that this may
be partly a failure of teachers of the blind, who need to do a better job of
training. She then reverts to the need for truncated domes--a truly stunning
intellectual leap. Many blind people don't know about curb ramps? Are they just
plain stupid? Don't they ever get out to walk around?

The answer sadly is that many do not. They do not because the method of teaching
them the use of the white cane was so rigid and useless that they actually learned
that the white cane is not a safe tool. Many people who are taught use of a
cane by professionals are taught to walk specific routes they have practiced
over and over. Success is graded by precision of cane arc and exact accuracy
of crossing streets, an emphasis on detail that obscures for both teacher and
learner the real point, which is to get where you are going. Many are taught
only a little in their own neighborhoods. Many never get to the downtown section,
where more of the ramps are located.

But I still come back to the original point. Dr. Bentzen herself says that the
teachers are not teaching the students what is in the world and how to work
with it. If this is so, then that's all the research we need. We need to abandon
any further efforts to change anything except the teaching methods now in use.
If the problem is curb ramps and if teachers now are not teaching curb ramps,
then let's change the teaching instead of attempting to change every curb ramp
in the world.

This is the perspective that is missing. The question should be to find out
why some blind people travel and some do not. The solutions that flow from the
answers to that question are teaching and social solutions.

We should all agree that we not spend more money on research that recommends
we spend more money on changing the built environment until we have thoroughly
examined and widely tried improving travel instruction and developing social
solutions. We may be surprised at how quickly and effectively perceptions of
the problems disappear. Teaching and social solutions are cheaper. They're more
permanent. And, for the blind people who use them, they're much safer.

In the end no one can define standards for much more than slope of ramp because
of the infinite variety of the world out there. It's better to teach the blind
person to deal competently and comfortably with diversity than to try to write
the impossible standard. And, even if the impossible standard did get written,
it would be worthless. Blind people don't need it; they do desperately need
other things like good training; they also need solutions that are inexpensive
and easily applied everywhere right now. Only good training meets this test.
Solutions aimed at altering the built environment do not. Nor do high-tech whiz-bang
science fiction prognostications.

ISVI
UPDATE

From the Editor: During the months
since publication of the May 1995, issue of the Braille Monitor, in which
we dealt exhaustively with the situation at the Illinois School for the Visually
Impaired (ISVI), we have provided occasional updates on what is happening at
the school. Last summer Dr. Dorothy Arensman was named to replace Dr. Richard
Umsted as ISVI superintendent. Reports indicate that she is taking hold firmly
and beginning to do what is necessary to restore the institution. Of course,
she is not moving as rapidly as some parents and consumers would like, but from
what we can tell she seems to be going in the right direction.

Steve Benson, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois,
invited her to speak to the state convention during the first weekend in November
about the school. Dr. Arensman accepted the invitation and answered delegates'
questions clearly and completely. She also told the group that she saw nothing
to be gained from continuing ISVI's accreditation with the National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). She has
since assured Cathy Randall, First Vice President of the NFB of Illinois and
a member of the ISVI Advisory Council, that she intends to write the letter
notifying NAC of her decision before the end of the year. She told Cathy, that
as far as she could tell, NAC was nothing more than an old-boy network and that
with the school's North Central accreditation she saw nothing to be gained and
much money to be wasted by maintaining continued NAC accreditation.

We can certainly applaud the good sense revealed in this statement.

The following are two articles that appeared in early September in the Jacksonville
Journal-Courier. Both were written by staff writer William Dennis. The first
appeared on September 5. Here it is:

New Blind School Chief Warms to Job

by William Dennis

Dorothy Arensman moved thousands of miles to become
superintendent of the Illinois School for the Visually
Impaired. But students are the ones experiencing culture
shock.

Dr. Arensman noticed some odd reactions when she walked
into a student dormitory soon after taking over in late
August.

"I don't think they are used to having someone visit
them (in the dorms)," she said. "I think that will go away
once they get used to me coming and going."

Dr. Arensman came to ISVI in part because she wanted a
job that gave her personal contact with children, which her
previous job as the director of personnel and special
services with the Bering Strait School District in
Unalakleet, Alaska, didn't allow.

"I guess it's the nurse in me, but I like to make
rounds every morning," Dr. Arensman said. "I go into
classrooms and spend a little time with students."

Dr. Arensman's personal touch is "wonderful," said
Cathy Randall of the National Federation of the Blind of
Illinois. "It's a real improvement," Ms. Randall said. "It's
great that she does want to have a personal relationship
with the students. She seems warm and genuinely concerned
with the students."

Dr. Richard Umsted, who was fired last year for failing
to inform the Department of Rehabilitation Services of
student-on-student sexual abuse, had also been criticized by
some in the blind community for not maintaining close
contact with students.

In only six weeks on the job Dr. Arensman also earned
high marks from Dave Postle, vice chairman of the ISVI
Advisory Council and a frequent critic of DORS and Dr.
Umsted's administration. He was impressed with how the new
superintendent handled an assault on a worker by a high
school student.

"Dr. Arensman supported the employee to the hilt," Mr.
Postle said. "The student was punished, which taught him and
other students that misbehavior will not be tolerated.
Employees also learned they will be supported."

Mr. Postle also is pleased with Dr. Arensman's efforts
to bring new technology to the school, as well as her plans
to visit classrooms and give teachers advice on how to do
their jobs better.

"Those teachers haven't had that for fifteen years or
more," he said. "DORS may have made a good choice in spite
of themselves."

When Dr. Arensman took over, she found employees who
"take a great deal of pride in their work," she said. She
was also surprised by the support Jacksonville residents
have for ISVI and the Illinois School for the Deaf.

"In some communities facilities with special
populations would not be welcome," she said.

She is also getting used to working with teachers who
have years of experience working with the same students, she
said. Teachers who worked in rural Alaska villages tended to
leave for new jobs after one or two years, and students
there often were resigned to the idea of their favorite
teachers' leaving.

Dr. Arensman took over the post as the school is trying
to recover from reports that administrators routinely failed
to inform DORS and parents of physical and sexual abuse of
students.

"We are following every rule and regulation so we are
above and beyond reproach," she said.

That was the upbeat article about the new ISVI
superintendent. The following day, September 6, an article
appeared which demonstrated that, though some things have
changed in matters surrounding the Illinois School for the
Visually Impaired, others remain depressingly discordant,
particularly where Richard Umsted is concerned. Dr. Umsted
wanted the state of Illinois to pay for separate legal
counsel for him in a civil suit brought against him and the
state by an ISVI parent whose son was allegedly molested
sexually by other students without intervention from school
officials. Here is Bill Dennis's article:

Umsted Seeks Counsel
Abused Student's Father Sues
by William Dennis

The former superintendent of the Illinois
School for the Visually Impaired doesn't want the Illinois Attorney General's
office to represent him in a lawsuit filed by an abused student's father.

A possible conflict of interest should prevent Attorney General James Ryan from
representing Richard Umsted, said the former superintendent's attorney, H. Allen
Yow.

"The state's interest is totally different from Mr. Umsted's interests,"
Mr. Yow said. The state would pay any real damages a court could assess against
Dr. Umsted, while the former superintendent would pay the punitive damages,
Mr. Yow said.

Another conflict could exist because the Department of Rehabilitation Services
may have given Mr. Ryan's office information about Dr. Umsted after the agency
fired the superintendent in August, 1994, for not reporting incidents of student-on-student
sexual abuse at the school.

A complaint for declaratory judgment filed September 1 in Morgan County Court
seeks to force the attorney general's office to let Dr. Umsted select his own
attorney, whose fees would be paid by the state. The attorney general's office
has refused requests to allow Mr. Umsted to select his own attorney, Mr. Yow
said.

The suit filed by Ronald Stevens in June in U.S. District Court in Springfield
seeks $1,000,000 in punitive damages and real damages of more than $50,000.
According to the complaint, the State Employees Indemnification Act requires
Mr. Ryan's office to represent Dr. Umsted because he was a state employee at
the time of the acts alleged in the suit.

Mr. Stevens' suit claims his son was "repeatedly subject to physical assaults
of a sexual nature by a fellow student or students" while the son was a
student at ISVI from 1984 to June, 1994.

The suit claims the assaults were reported to Dr. Umsted, who failed to notify
DORS and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, and also failed
to protect the student from further assaults.

The student "suffered physical pain, emotional distress, embarrassment,
and humiliation" and will do so in the future as well, according to the
suit. Mr. Stevens incurred medical and hospital bills due to treatment and diagnosis
of his son's injuries, the suit alleges.

Mr. Yow is advising Mr. Umsted not to talk to the media. The former superintendent
and his wife moved away from Jacksonville.

Dr. Umsted has until September 13 to file an answer to Mr. Stevens' complaint.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Donald C. Capps, President of the NFB of South
Carolina]

NFB
OF SOUTH CAROLINA FIGHTS TO PRESERVE
COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

State rehabilitation agencies serving the blind seem
inevitably to attract or stimulate political intrigue. The
details vary from time to time and place to place, but
people with serious problems and needing immediate help are
understandably frustrated when overworked staff act slowly
or not at all. Moreover, counselors and supervisors who are
being criticized are likely to become defensive and dig in
their heels. In such circumstances accusations fly and
people instinctively take sides. At that point reason, good
faith, and common sense too often depart. The current
brouhaha surrounding the South Carolina Commission for the
Blind provides a distressing case in point--with a
distasteful admixture of racial accusation thrown in for
good measure.

In the May 1995, issue of The Palmetto Blind, the
magazine of the National Federation of the Blind of South
Carolina, Don Capps wrote at length about the situation in
his President's column. He pointed out that thirty years ago
the South Carolina affiliate successfully fought for the
establishment of an independent commission to serve blind
citizens. Three of the first four commissioners appointed to
lead the agency were removed from office during times of
controversy, and there are now those who would like to see
Commissioner Donald Gist meet the same fate.

According to Don Capps, accusations against the
Commission abound: inefficiency, bureaucratic snarls, slow
or non-existent responses to letters and phone calls, etc.
Don acknowledges that phone calls should always be returned
punctually, letters be answered efficiently, red tape cut to
a minimum, and rehabilitation business conducted as
expeditiously and compassionately as possible. People should
never be told that there are no funds for needed services
unless that is absolutely and demonstrably the case. But he
goes on to say that from his perspective things are no worse
at the Commission today than they have ever been, and his
personal experience has been that inquiries are handled
quickly and responsibly. He goes on to point out that the
Commission staff members whom some have recently accused of
misconduct are often the same people who were employed by
the agency before Mr. Gist became Commissioner, and they are
giving the same kind of service today they have always
provided.

There is no doubt, Don says, that blind South
Carolinians are better off today than they were before the
Commission was established. The Business Enterprise Program
employs many more people, and the quality of their jobs and
income is much greater. Many more students are attending
college with the assistance of the Commission than
previously, and much good work is being done to assist older
blind citizens and those living in rural areas. Yet there
are always a few people inclined to grumble.

Unfortunately, in a climate in which the legislature is
always trying to save money by consolidating service-
delivery agencies, the danger is that any dissatisfaction
that registers in the legislature will be used as an excuse
to eliminate the Commission for the Blind and tuck its
services into another agency, where they will inevitably be
downgraded.

This is the danger that now faces South Carolina's
commission and its blind citizens. According to Don, the NFB
of South Carolina is prepared to stand and fight whenever
its good name and reputation for integrity are impugned and
whenever the best interests of blind people are endangered,
and he says that time has now come. This is the way he
described the current situation in his May Palmetto Blind
column:

A few individuals, led by Earlene Gardner, former
chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the agency [the
South Carolina Commission for the Blind], have taken it upon
themselves to engage in destructive activities. The NFB of
South Carolina has many contacts and friends in the South
Carolina House of Representatives and Senate, who keep us
posted on significant developments which affect the blind.
On or about March 15 a Dear-Friend letter signed by a blind
vendor, Hattie Waymeyers, but believed to have been authored
primarily by Earlene Gardner was distributed to legislators,
including members of the Senate. In this letter Commissioner
Gist was assailed.

The letter stated, "Everyone, myself included, thought
that once the new board was in place, the long awaited
changes would occur to correct the many problems at the
agency. However, this did not occur. It seems that the new
board chairman, Mr. Robert Harrelson, has been seduced by
Mr. Gist and has elected to ignore the mandated evaluation
of the Commissioner and will not permit the board to meet in
executive session to discuss Mr. Gist's performance, which
performance is at the root of the agency's problems. Another
board member, the Reverend W.O. Willis, has been wooed by
Mr. Gist with travel and perks to Myrtle Beach and
Washington, D.C., as a representative of the agency--an
agency whose operation and mission he knows little or
nothing about."

So said the letter ostensibly written by Hattie
Waymeyers, and it seems out of line that Reverend Willis,
who has been on the board only a few months, would be
criticized for travel to Myrtle Beach and Washington,
considering the fact that Mrs. Gardner received payments
from the Commission for the Blind totalling $25,895.05 from
1990 to 1993. The March 15 letter goes on to say: "While
clients are being told that there are no funds available to
purchase the equipment needed for the employment and jobs
are being lost to lack of Commission support, he is spending
over $40,000 a year at the Rocky Bottom Camp operated by the
NFB of South Carolina for rural-mobility training. This camp
is operated free to all blind citizens, and this training
could be held in any of the nearby state parks at no cost to
the taxpayers."

After being viciously attacked, the Reverend Oliver
Willis understandably responded to the letter signed by
Hattie Waymeyers of March 15 by writing to legislators on
March 23, 1995, in part as follows: "I just could not let a
matter of this significance pass without a corrected reply.
First, where did she [Hattie Waymeyers] get her information?
How did she get her information? She is not a member of the
Board of the Commission for the Blind. Yet she speaks of the
Commission's business as though she were an ex-officio
member. Second, such innuendoes, inferences, untruths
throughout her letter are false, unfounded, and a deliberate
attempt to cause friction. Such accusations concerning me
are outrageous and ill-willed. Why? I do not know. Such
comments as she makes do not warrant a response, for such
immature and idle talk is unbecoming one of dignity and
character. . . .

"Recommendation: It is my honest desire to have Mrs.
Waymeyers make these allegations under oath and to be cross-
examined. Isn't it the American way for the victim to have
the right to confront his accuser? Further, this
recommendation would carry with it a proviso that, if a
member [of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind
Board] is discovered to be feeding this woman false and
malicious statements. . . which I believe is the case. . .,
then the member should be required to resign from the board
within ten days."

Concerning the statements made about Rocky Bottom Camp
of the Blind in the March 15 letter, which were designed to
harm both Rocky Bottom Camp of the Blind and the NFB of
South Carolina, the statement that Rocky Bottom Camp of the
Blind receives more than $40,000 a year from the Commission
for the Blind is inaccurate. The correct amount is $38,000 a
year. A similar amount is being paid to the South Carolina
Lions Club Association for their sight preservation program,
but no one criticizes the Lions contract since it is well
known that the Lions are not going to get involved in any
vendetta against the Commission's administration.
Furthermore, Earlene Gardner was a chief supporter of the
program at Rocky Bottom Camp of the Blind in partnership
with the Commission for the Blind when the project was
initiated in 1991. This is an excellent program of service
to the blind, and any objective review of the program by a
responsible person is welcomed. The program is cost-
effective. Waymeyers's March 15 letter goes on to say: "This
camp is operated free to all blind citizens, and this
training could be held at any of the nearby state parks at
no cost to the taxpayers."

It is true that the rank-and-file blind of this state
are able to visit Rocky Bottom Camp of the Blind and enjoy
its facilities without cost. The special training program in
partnership between the NFB of South Carolina and the
Commission for the Blind for Commission clients provides far
more than just a casual visit to the camp, and Earlene
Gardner knows this. The contract between the NFB of South
Carolina and the Commission for the Blind provides
Commission clients, among other things, "meals; snacks;
services of the resident manager; attendance of a licensed
practical nurse to provide health care; and other related
services, facilities, programs, and goods." When Commission
clients are at Rocky Bottom, they receive rehabilitation,
orientation, rural mobility, Braille, and communication,
among other services. The contract goes on to state, "The
services provided at the camp in conjunction with the
programs through the South Carolina Commission for the Blind
will emphasize building the client's skills and confidence."

Earlene Gardner knows full well that blind persons who
visit the camp for rest, leisure, and recreation do so on a
free basis but are not entitled to the special services
provided by the aforementioned program between Rocky Bottom
and the Commission. In our judgment it is despicable to
distort this situation for political purposes. The
Commission for the Blind gets more than its money's worth
for the services provided by Rocky Bottom Camp of the Blind
for Commission clients. More important, the clients
participating in this program are greatly benefited. As for
the idea of state parks' being used for this purpose by the
Commission, to make such a claim is outrageous and is simply
distortion of the facts.

The activities of Mrs. Gardner and her small following
have now taken on a far more serious tone. Members of the
legislature, including state senators, have now received a
so-called anonymous position paper on the state of affairs
at the Commission for the Blind. This anonymous
communication, which was faxed to someone who then saw that
it was circulated to members of the South Carolina
Legislature, has serious ethical, legal, and political
implications. The communication was faxed at 8:45 a.m. April
24, 1995. The fax number was on the communication, and it
has been verified that this fax machine is located at the
Owens Corning Fiber Company in Aiken, South Carolina. Thus
the fax is really not anonymous because the sender and
recipient overlooked one important thing--the failure of the
sender to delete the fax number.

The so-called position paper begins as follows: "As
members of the Black Blind Professional Alliance (BBPA), we
are gravely concerned about the current state of affairs at
the Commission for the Blind." The position paper goes on to
state, "Furthermore, this administration does not respect
the views of any black, blind person who is educated and
outspoken. This is evident in the fact that Mr. Gist
continues to use fear and intimidation to silence people
like Ms. Hattie Waymeyers, who is highly respected in the
black, blind community and a vocal critic of the Commission
for the Blind." The position paper also states, "We also
feel it is not fair for Mr. Gist to claim he is a victim of
`racism.' To play the `race game' is a convenient way to win
sympathy from the black community, which Mr. Gist is able to
do whenever his critics are too vocal. The BBPA will make
every effort to insure that the Black Caucus is not used by
Mr. Gist to serve as his pawn because the real issue is
accountability and not race."

The position paper contains a veiled threat against the
Black Caucus as the following passage indicates: "Therefore,
any show of support from any member of the Black Caucus will
be viewed with a great deal of `suspicions.'" Reverend
Oliver Willis, vice chairman of the Commission's Board of
Commissioners, is also attacked. As the paper states, "We
strongly believe that Reverend Willis is easily manipulated
by Mr. Gist and is not perceived by the majority of the
members of BBPA as being someone capable of making objective
and impartial decisions regarding the affairs of the
agency." Reverend Willis, however, was not the only board
member attacked. The position paper denounces all members of
the board by saying, "Presently, BBPA does not support the
appointment of any governing board members to the Commission
for the Blind because the board, like the previous board,
allowed itself to fall victim to the charm and manipulative
games of Mr. Gist."

The position paper goes on to say, "On a final note,
the BBPA would like to go on record as supporting
`legislation that would put the agency in the Governor's
office, elect a panel of board members who are accountable
to the Governor and not to the agency head.'" The position
paper further states, "Unfortunately, members of the Black
Blind Professional Alliance have opted not to identify
ourselves for fear of becoming victims of `McCarthyism' or
targeted by Mr. Gist for exercising our God-given right of
Freedom of Speech."

The NFB of South Carolina believes in freedom of speech
but also believes that such freedoms should not include or
validate slander and libelous attacks. It is perfectly
understandable why no one was willing to sign this so-called
position paper. It would appear, however, from information
reaching The Palmetto Blind that Earlene and Charles Gardner
were involved in circulating this position paper. Mr.
Gardner is employed by the Owens Corning Fiber Company of
Aiken and has been for a number of years.

Contacts have been made with officials of Owens
Corning, including Mr. Jerry Hawkins, by Commission
officials and members of the Senate, who are outraged.
Information furnished to The Palmetto Blind indicates that
Mr. Hawkins has discussed this matter with Charles Gardner,
who has not denied that he used Owens Corning's fax machine
to send the fax to Columbia, where it was apparently
reproduced and widely distributed. While Mr. Gardner
apparently faxed the so-called position paper, it is
believed that Earlene Gardner was its principal author.
Information received by The Palmetto Blind indicates that
Mr. Hawkins of Owens Corning Fiber Company disapproved of
the use of that company's fax machine for purposes unrelated
to Owens Corning. The nature and political implications of
the position paper are extremely serious. When the fax was
received in Columbia, it is likely that the duplication
involved the use of state resources, which in and of itself
would constitute a significant impropriety, if not an
outright violation of the law.

Inquiries have failed to confirm the existence of an
organization known as Black Blind Professional Alliance. It
appears that the author or authors of the anonymous paper
felt the use of such a name was necessary to give the paper
some credibility. In our judgment, however, doing so
constitutes a disservice to many fine black blind people in
this state who for the most part would have nothing to do
with such an anonymous paper. This is especially true if (as
we believe) the anonymous paper was written by a white
author. The NFB of South Carolina has more minority members
than any other affiliate of the National Federation of the
Blind. They serve as chapter and state officials and make
outstanding contributions to the well-being of the NFB of
South Carolina and to their white blind brothers and sisters
across the state. The nature and tone of the position paper
is in and of itself racist. The NFB of South Carolina would
never endorse or support any organization such as a White
Blind Professional Alliance because this would also be
racist.

The Palmetto Blind has learned that members of the
Black Caucus are also outraged by the manner in which they
are described in the position paper. One thing is certain--
the author or authors of the position paper have managed to
alienate a lot of important people, and their actions seem
to be those of frantic and confused people who are consumed
with hate. The NFB of South Carolina has requested its law
firm carefully to investigate and study the legal
implications of the false pretenses of this position paper.
We leave to Owens Corning what action to take concerning the
unauthorized use of its fax machine to transmit this so-
called position paper with its fraudulent representation of
authorship. While every blind South Carolinian has every
right to his or her own position concerning the Commission
and programs for the blind, in light of what has transpired
with respect to the position paper and the circumstances
surrounding it, Earlene Gardner's small following may wish
to rethink its position.

Finally, with respect to the Commission's monthly board
meeting, the NFB of South Carolina has concerns regarding
the audience-participation part of the meeting. The
governing board of the Commission for the Blind is, of
course, responsible for the conduct of its meetings. At the
same time, however, the integrity and order of the board
meeting is also important. While the NFB of South Carolina
supports freedom of expression and input from the blind at
the board meetings, when such expression and input become
irresponsible and mean-spirited, this participation is not
warranted or desirable.

At the April 19 meeting of the Commission's board, the
audience participation was especially disturbing. Various
participants attacked members of the board as well as
Commissioner Gist and in fact attacked each other. The
potential for violence existed. There is no place for this
kind of behavior in the conduct of Commission business.
Since freedom of expression and input by the blind are
important, in order to avoid future acrimony of the type
that occurred at the April 19 meeting, we suggest that the
board consider having those blind persons attending monthly
board meetings present their comments in writing to the
board for its consideration and action. Any future spectacle
of the type that occurred at the April 19 board meeting can
only do further harm to the Commission.

Having participated as a volunteer in this big program
of serving the blind for more than forty years, I know
first-hand that people have different perspectives about
state programs. This is to be expected, but I can not recall
during the past forty years when there has been so much
hatred by a few people. It cannot be justified or permitted
to take control. The NFB of South Carolina will continue to
be responsible in its positions and will do everything
humanly possible to help stabilize the current situation.
Because of its impressive track record for fifty years, the
NFB of South Carolina is respected by the public and the
General Assembly. All of us involved in this big program of
serving the blind should do everything we can individually
and collectively to bring about goodwill and respect for
each other. The blind of the state need and deserve the very
best possible from all of us.

That is the way Don Capps described the events of the
early spring. The six Black Senators, who comprise the
membership on the Senate side of the South Carolina Black
Caucus, did not take kindly to the attack on them in the so-
called position paper circulated by the Gardners and one
Black vendor in the Business Enterprise Program. The most
obvious place for the Senators to lodge their complaint was
with the company whose Fax machine had been used to
circulate the accusations. Here is the letter they wrote to
the manager of the Owens Corning plant in question:

Last week several senators saw Mr. &
Mrs. Charles and Earlene Gardner sitting in the Gressette Building Canteen talking
with Ms. Hattie Waymeyers. A few days later up pops the attached Owens Corning
fax of 04-24-1995, 8:45 (803-468- 6351, 526 Aiken TSO) in the Gressette Building,
and I assume it was received on the South Carolina Senate Fax: (803) 212- 6299.
Also, the fax is coming from a phantom (appearance with no substance, image
in the mind) organization, i.e., the Black Blind Professional Alliance (BBPA)--which
professes to speak for Black people. We didn't realize that the three founders
and three members were in the process of founding BBPA in Ms. Waymeyers' Canteen--eye
witnesses to history. But this is what puzzles us six Black Senators: If two
members of a three-member organization are white, then how in the hell can they
call said organization Black?-- unless, of course, there is something in the
Gardners' family tree roots that they ain't shared with us.

Mr. Hawkins, it's bad enough for Mr. & Mrs. Charles and Earlene Gardner
to use Ms. Hattie Waymeyers in a long-standing vendetta of trashing Mr. Donald
Gist, South Carolina Blind Commissioner. But when the unholy trinity starts
trashing and disparaging the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus (six senators
and twenty-five representatives), we must quote the dog that raped the skunk,
"We've enjoyed just about as much of this as we can stand." And if
the unholy trinity (BBPA) think we senators are going to sit here in the South
Carolina Senate and allow them to dump on us, they're crazy as hell. Therefore,
we are respectfully requesting your response in writing to the following:

1. Is it Owens Corning policy to let employees use their fax to disparage Black
legislators in the South Carolina Assembly?

2. What does Owens Corning plan to do in regard to clearing our names (making
us whole), as elected officials that speak for our constituents in general and
Blacks in particular? Yes, unlike the self-appointed unholy-trinity.

In conclusion, please be advised that we shall continue to speak to the needs,
the dreams, and the aspirations of our people--the self-appointed leaders, phantom
organizations, and unholy-trinity notwithstanding.

May we thank you in advance for your cooperation in this grave and serious matter
and for a response as soon as practicable?

And how did Mr. Hawkins answer this clearly angry
demand for information and a change in company practice? He
obviously remembered the Biblical admonition that "A soft
answer turneth away wrath" and hoped that employing such a
strategy would allow the storm to blow over. This is what he
said to each of the Black Senators:

Aiken, South Carolina
May 11, 1995

Dear (blank):

Personally and on behalf of Owens Corning,
I regret that our company fax was used by Mr. Charles Gardner to send his message
dated April 24, 1995.

Our practice at Owens Corning is not to allow personal use of company equipment
or materials without prior management approval, which was not sought in this
situation. I personally counselled Mr. Gardner about this matter and emphasized
that our equipment is not to be used for personal or political matters. In addition,
to avoid future misunderstandings we will clearly communicate our expectations
in this area to all 1200 employees at the Aiken Plant.

On behalf of Owens Corning and the Aiken Plant, I apologize for this unfortunate
incident and misunderstanding. You have my commitment that action has been taken
to avoid this type of misunderstanding in the future.

There you have the exchange of correspondence that was
reprinted in the Palmetto Blind. Not surprisingly Mr.
Hawkins's response did not resolve the matter to the
satisfaction of anyone. Two people who were deeply disturbed
and offended at the allegations made in the April 24 fax
were Leroy Burns, a blind vendor, and Leroy Moss, a widely
respected employee of the Commission for the Blind. They
have now brought suit against Earlene Gardner, her husband,
the Black Blind Professional Alliance, and Owens Corning,
Inc. Here is the complaint they filed on October 21, 1995:

1. The Plaintiffs, are blind citizens
and residents of the County of Richland, State of South Carolina.

2. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Charles Gardner and Earlene Gardner
are husband and wife, residents of Aiken County and are agents of each other
at all times relevant to this action.

3. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Owens Corning Incorporated is
a Corporation organized under the laws of the United States and operating in
the State of South Carolina.

4. On or about April 24, 1995, the Defendant, Charles Gardner, intentionally
faxed a document from his place of employment at Owens Corning using Owens Corning
fax machine, to all African-American members of the Legislature of the State
of South Carolina.

5. The Defendant, Black Blind Professional Alliance is not an organized entity
within the State of South Carolina.

6. The document in question contained language in which the Defendant Earlene
Gardner did represent herself to be a member of the Black Blind Professional
Alliance.

7. The Defendant, Charles Gardner was and is an employee of the Defendant, Owens
Corning.

8. The Defendant, Earlene Gardner is and was at all times relevant to this action,
a Board member of the Commission for the Blind.

9. The Defendants, Charles Gardner and Earlene Gardner are caucasian.

For a First Cause of Action Defamation

10. The Plaintiffs reallege each and every above
paragraph as if restated word for word.

11. Earlene Gardner was knowledgeable of and did
authorize the actions of her husband on April 24, 1995.

12. The Defendants, Earlene and Charles Gardner,
through the Black Blind Professional Alliance have made
disparaging remarks causing retribution to the Black blind
population of South Carolina.

13. The Defendants, Earlene and Charles Gardner,
through the Black Blind Professional Alliance did state
facts about the Commission for the Blind that are untrue.

For a Second Cause of Action Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress

14. The Plaintiffs reallege each and every above
paragraph as if restated word for word.

15. The Defendant, the Black Blind Professional
Association, did allege such facts about the Commission for
the Blind; which the defendant Earlene Gardner, who serves
on the Commission for the Blind, knew the facts to be
untrue.

16. Defendants' actions and statements were intended to
cause injury to the Black blind persons of the State of
South Carolina, in particular, to the Plaintiffs, and to the
Commission for the Blind.

For a Third Cause of Action Respondeat
Superior

17. The Plaintiffs reallege each and every above
paragraph as if restated word for word.

18. The Defendant, Charles Gardner, did transmit the
disparaging memo while within the scope of his employment at
Owens Corning; as such, the Defendant Owens Corning is
liable to Plaintiffs for Charles Gardner's actions through
the doctrine of respondeat superior.

19. The Defendant, Charles Gardner, did publish the
untrue defamatory remarks while posing as a representative
of the Black Blind Professional Alliance by using the fax
machine that he was authorized to use at his place of
employment, Owens Corning.

21. The Plaintiffs reallege each and every above
paragraph as if restated word for word.

22. Defendant, Owens Corning, has a duty to the public
to exercise due care in hiring, supervising, and retaining
its employees.

23. The Defendant, Owens Corning, through its agents
was negligent in the following particulars:

a. in the hiring of Charles Gardner.
b. in the supervision of Charles Gardner in
that it is foreseeable that an employee could use
the company's fax machine to perform improper
acts, without specific written guidelines or
company rules to regulate an employee's
activities.
c. in the retention of Charles Gardner and
not taking any disciplinary actions after the
company became aware of Charles Gardner's use of
the company's fax machine.

For a Fifth Cause of Action Fraud

24. The Plaintiffs reallege each and every above
paragraph as if restated word for word.
25. The Defendants, Charles Gardner and Earlene
Gardner, did seek to deceive the African-American members of
the Legislature of the State of South Carolina and members
of the public by posing as representatives of the Black
Blind Professional Alliance.

26. The Defendant, Earlene Gardner, intended to portray
herself as a member of the blind African-American community
and as a representative of members of the African-American
community.

Injunctive Relief

27. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they
are entitled to an injunction prohibiting the Defendant
Earlene Gardner from masquerading as a member of the blind
African-American community of the State of South Carolina.

Damages

28. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they
are entitled to monetary damages from the Defendants.

29. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that as to
the Defendant, Earlene Gardner, she should be removed from
her position with the Commission for the Blind.

30. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the
Defendants are liable for misrepresenting themselves as
being blind persons.

31. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they
are entitled to actual and punitive damages from the
Defendant, Owens Corning, Incorporated.

32. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the
Defendant should be enjoined from masquerading as
representatives of the Black African-American community.

33. The Plaintiffs cannot afford to pay an attorney.
The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Defendants
should be responsible for the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees
and costs associated with this action.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs
pray that this Court enter its Order:

1. Granting Plaintiffs monetary damages.

2. Ordering that Defendant, Earlene Gardner, be removed from her position on
the Commission for the Blind.

3. Defendants be held liable for misrepresenting themselves as blind people.

AND
THE BLIND SHALL LEAD: BUSY STOCKBROKER
AS INDEPENDENT AS HE WANTS TO BE

by Kate Thompson

From the Editor: The following story
first appeared in the July 16, 1995, edition of the Sioux City Journal.
Rich Crawford is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind
of Iowa. He is also a successful stockbroker. Here is the article as it appeared:

The head of a deer he shot a few years ago on a hunting
trip graces the wall near a globe. Framed pictures dot the
walls. There's a computer, of course, and a calculator. And,
leaning on the wall beside the door, there's a white cane.
Crawford uses it to maneuver beyond his office.

Crawford, forty-five, is totally blind and has been
since he was ten. But don't focus on the limitation. He
doesn't.

Those who make the mistake of figuring they can beat
him because he's blind sometimes find his handicap gives him
an advantage.

That's what happened more than once when he was a high
school wrestler. In the last few seconds his sighted
opponent could see the time clock and would let up a little.
Crawford, who had no idea that time was running out, more
than once pinned opponents at 5:59.

"I never lost because I was blind," he says. "I lost
because they were better."

The deer on Crawford's wall is just one example of his
refusal to accept his limitations. He's tried hunting,
driving a snowmobile, skiing both on water and snow.
He's even driven a motorcycle--"anytime I can get
somebody dumb enough to ride behind me," he says. "When I
snow ski, the guide skis behind me and uses a walkie-talkie
and talks me down the mountain."

Parents get credit

Crawford credits his parents with much of his success.
"They taught me the best three-letter word in the
language: try," he says. "I'll just try things to see how
far I can push my talents and abilities. I can't find many
maximums. I can't legally drive a car, but I have driven.
I've never taken off or landed a plane, but I bet most other
people haven't either."

When Crawford's plumbing breaks or his wife's car needs
repairs, he doesn't immediately call for help.

"I always screw it up worse first," he said. "You'd be
surprised, though, how often I fix it. It's amazing what I
can do when I try."

Crawford's blindness is the result of a progressive eye
disease. For the first few years, he says, he was angry,
rebellious, and resentful.

OK to be blind

"Thank goodness I outgrew it," he says. "You have to
get to acceptance, and you can't do that until it's okay to
be blind."

Crawford earned a bachelor's degree at Wartburg College
in Waverly, Iowa, and a master of business administration
degree at the University of South Dakota, which he earned
while working full time.

He and his wife Sara, who is sighted, have a daughter
and two sons.

Almost twenty years ago he decided he wanted to find an
occupation that earned him more money. When he applied to
become a stockbroker, he wasn't asked how he would solve all
the problems he'd face on the job. Instead, he was told what
it took to be a successful stockbroker.

"I said I could do that," Crawford said. But he had no
idea how.

At first he needed an assistant to help him do what
other brokers consider simple tasks, such as scanning the
ticker for quotes and monitoring market news. He had a slow
Braille-printing machine and a talking calculator about the
size of a typewriter, but neither was quick.

Today he has a pocket-sized talking calculator, a
paperless Braille device that reads his computer screen one
line at a time, a Braille printer in case he wants to take
work home, and vocal scanners that can read typed
information aloud or convert it to his computer, where he
can read it.

Technology helps

"The technology is wonderful, and it can give us
independence," Crawford said. "But it doesn't make us
stockbrokers, or accountants, or anything. All they are are
the tools."

When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed a
few years ago, the intent was good, but the results haven't
been great, Crawford said.

"If you think that, if you hire me, you will have to
buy all this equipment, it puts up all kinds of obstacles,"
Crawford said. "We have a philosophy. Give us the training,
give us an opportunity, and let us try. If we can't give you
results, then politely fire us."

Other blind brokers have been hired at Dain Bosworth,
and two of them were fired. But they weren't fired because
they were blind, Crawford said.

"They were fired because they could not produce at the
standards of our company," he said. "The ADA sometimes
interferes with some employers who would give an
opportunity."

Sometimes those who are handicapped are pigeon-holed
into low-level positions when they have enormous unused
potential.

"If a businessman were smart, he would hire handicapped
people," Crawford said. "The majority are loyal, hard-
working, and dependable. We don't take our job security for
granted. Most of us had to work too hard to get them.
Employers should exploit that."

Sometimes employers are prevented from hiring
handicapped people when they consider the obstacles those
potential employees face, such as how they will get to the
office in the first place.

His thumb's out

Crawford gets there by hitchhiking,
rain or shine. His average time to work is ten minutes, and he's been first
into the office many times when snow kept sighted people home.

"Nice people stop; snobs drive by," he said. "I meet a lot of
nice people, and I get two or three new clients from hitchhiking to work every
month. I can't afford to quit hitchhiking."

Crawford said potential employers should give people the opportunity to solve
their problems creatively. It may cost $11,000 for a Braille screenreader, but
it's cheaper than the 70 percent unemployment now among blind people.

In his spare time Crawford works with parents of newly blinded children in the
tri-state area and also with handicapped individuals working to become successful
stockbrokers.

Those people can learn from Crawford, finding out what he's already learned
by trial and error.

"They don't have to reinvent the wheel," he said. "It's fun to
give. Life has been so good to me. It's fun to give back."

Some other handicapped people haven't been as successful as Crawford.

"I have to be careful not to be an Uncle Tom," he said. "Maybe
their life isn't so good. It's important to share with one another and help
each other as we struggle through life."

[PHOTO: The picture is of a sign "Xing
for Blind."

CAPTION: Sign on 1st Avenue, South at
22nd Street near the National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota building,
which can be seen in the background]

CROSSING
FOR BLIND SIGNS CROSSED OUT

by Peggy Chong

From the Editor: Apparently some
small percentage of the general public observe blind people innocently going
about our business and come up with what they believe are bright ideas. In the
past these have ranged from the ridiculous (a combination cane and snow-removal
device) to the ultimately helpful (white cane, proposed in 1933 in Peoria, Illinois).
The problem has always been that these would-be altruists almost never consult
blind people before implementing their bright ideas. One of the few disadvantages
of having more blind people than ever before out and about, carrying on their
personal business like everybody else is that we can probably expect an increase
in these well- meant but usually inappropriate gestures complicating our lives.

This appears to be what happened to the blind population of Minneapolis last
summer. Peggy Chong, President of the Metro Chapter of the NFB of Minnesota,
recounts the full story:

In early August, 1995, we discovered that, without our
knowledge or input, crossing-for-blind signs had been
installed near NFB of Minnesota headquarters. Members of our
organization and the students and staff at BLIND, Inc. (our
adult rehabilitation center), were understandably upset.

As soon as we discovered the signs, president Joyce
Scanlan got on the phone to find out who was responsible for
putting them up. No one would take responsibility for them;
each official passed the buck to some other department. It
appeared that, in order to get the signs removed, we would
have to wage war against the city and wade through the time-
consuming, bureaucratic red tape of city government. Joyce
wrote the following letter:

August 18, 1995

Michael J. Monahan, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Minneapolis
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear Mr. Monahan:

This letter is written to present to you a formal
request to remove three "Xing for blind" traffic signs which
have recently appeared along Nicollet Avenue, north and
south of Twenty-second Street and along First Avenue to the
south of Twenty-second Street. These signs, which have been
added to already-existing "pedestrian crossing" signs, pose
serious problems of safety and public understanding and
social acceptance for the entire population of blind people.
They must be removed immediately.

As president of an organization whose purpose is to
bring about the integration of blind people into society on
a basis of equality with others, I must point out serious
questions and concerns about the effects of these signs on
blind people throughout our community; on the students of
BLIND, Inc., an orientation center where blind people
receive training; and on the work that all of us do to
create better public awareness and understanding of
blindness.

I regret that I must bring this matter to your
attention after the decision to install the signs has
already been implemented. However, although the signs
specifically refer to blind people and have a direct impact
on our lives, neither the National Federation of the Blind
of Minnesota (NFBM) nor BLIND, Inc., was consulted or given
opportunity for input prior to the implementation of this
very unfortunate decision. Therefore we are forced into the
position of undoing an arbitrary and poorly-thought-out
decision.

On Tuesday of this week, I spoke with Mr. Rick Dahl of
the Transportation Division about my concerns. He was
clearly uninterested in my concerns and said that, in order
to reverse this very harmful situation, I must wend my way
through city bureaucracy and deal with the City Council, et
al. This is a fine example of bureaucracy run amuck and of
why citizens today find government unresponsive and wasteful
of public resources.

Mr. Dahl first told me that either the NFBM or BLIND,
Inc., had asked for the xing-for-blind signs. When I refuted
that possibility by pointing out that I had not been
consulted or notified by anyone about the signs, he shifted
his story to say that "Maybe it was a City Council member or
a concerned neighbor." I have always understood that, before
traffic lights or stop signs can be installed, there is vast
opportunity for public input. Yet in this instance the
public most concerned, blind people themselves, were
excluded from the process.

Mr. Dahl then argued in favor of the xing-for-blind
signs by saying, "We only put them in areas where there is a
concentration of blind people." This sounds to me like the
ghetto mentality. We had hoped that our community had
progressed to the point where ghettos were no longer
considered appropriate for anyone--including blind people.
It should no longer be radical to plead for integration of
blind people into our society. In every aspect of life today
we hear of "mainstreaming" and "full inclusion." Blind
people today travel independently and safely throughout the
entire city, state, nation, and world. Yet our area has been
designated by city officials as constituting a
"concentration of blind people" and the basis for additional
and special signs.

There is no evidence to prove that these xing-for-blind
signs have value for either sighted drivers or blind
pedestrians. Drivers ignore the signs, as witness an
incident that occurred just last week, when a blind student
assumed that the driver of an approaching truck had read and
given heed to the xing-for-blind sign and stepped into the
street. Fortunately no one was injured. Eyewitnesses and the
police determined that "It was not the driver's fault." On
the other hand, the xing-for-blind sign gave the blind
student a false sense of security. Mr. Dahl charged that it
is the responsibility of the training center to help
students understand that they must not count on the signs to
provide security. I am struggling to understand who the
beneficiaries of the signs really are.

A normal environment is very important for blind
students in a training center. The emphases at BLIND, Inc.
are personal responsibility and independence. Students go
all over the community where, in most cases, the environment
can be counted on to be as it is for all citizens. Yet in
the immediate area of the training center, you have created
an unusual and artificial environment by introducing these
xing-for-blind signs. Thus the work of the training program
has been made more difficult.

I tried to discuss the effects of public attitudes
about blindness on blind people themselves. There is a great
deal of fear in the public mind regarding blindness. In
fact, numerous public opinion polls have indicated that
Americans fear blindness more than any other condition
except cancer. This fear then translates into inaccurate and
negative information and devastating consequences for blind
people. The xing-for-blind signs placed on the streets
without consultation with blind people are just one outcome
of this public fear and misunderstanding. Students from the
BLIND, Inc., training center are learning skills to promote
independence and employability. The xing-for-blind signs
have a negative effect on their prospects for a productive
future as employed citizens as well as on the attitudes of
the sighted drivers who may be potential employers of these
blind students.

Then Mr. Dahl said, "I am concerned for the safety of
blind people." I hope that he is concerned for the safety of
all people. Since this "safety" concern is used so often
when blind people are involved, one wonders if the
implication is that we as blind people are not concerned
with safety or cannot assume responsibility for our own
safety and must be cared for. I can assure you that this is
not the case. This statement on safety is frequently used as
an argument to exclude blind people from equal access and
equal participation. It is simply another way of saying,
"Don't bother me with the facts; I know what is best for you
blind people." It is an overused and much worn argument
brought into a discussion to discount what we as blind
people are saying.

A person who is blind learns to listen for the sounds
of traffic and wait for traffic to clear before stepping
into the street to cross. This listening technique truly
does work as well as the seeing technique works for those
with reliable eyesight. The listening technique is normal
for those of us who are blind. We hope not to make mistakes,
but after all sighted pedestrians make mistakes
occasionally. The city should have no more liability for a
blind citizen than it has for a sighted person.

In conclusion, the xing-for-blind signs are far more
harmful than helpful. Please remove them from this area as
soon as possible.

If you have questions or would like to discuss the
matter further, please call me. I am sure we can resolve
this matter with peace and harmony.

Very truly yours,

Joyce Scanlan
President, National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota

cc: Mayor Sharon Sayles-Belton; members of the City Council;
Marc Maurer, President, National Federation of the Blind

We cannot point out often enough that no one told us
the signs had been requested or were going to be put up. No
one came to ask the blind people whom the signs were
supposed to protect if they were needed or wanted. One novel
argument expressed in support of the signs was that, if they
were taken down, the city would be more liable if a blind
pedestrian were hit or injured. One wonders whether this
increased liability would apply at other intersections
around the city--intersections far more likely to be crossed
by a blind pedestrian.

At the August meeting of the NFB of Minnesota Metro
Chapter, Joyce read her letter to the membership. Many
people wanted to take down the offending signs right away.
We ultimately decided that we did not want to cloud the
issue with civil disobedience--well at least not right away.
So we agreed to wait until August 24, at 2:00 p.m. We
decided that, if we had not heard from the city by then, we
would stage a picket around the signs and invite the media.

Supplies were purchased for picket signs; calls were
made; some members arranged to take the day off; and some
arranged for baby sitters. On Wednesday, August 23, at 1:00
p.m., Joyce received a call from Michael Monahan. He said
that he was completely supportive of our position but that
the removal of the signs had to be approved by the City
Council. We decided to postpone the picketing and give Mr.
Monahan a chance to make the system work.

Chapter members got to work. They contacted their City
Council representatives by phone and by mail, informing them
that we wanted the Xing-for-blind signs to come down! And
our efforts paid off.

Because of the contacts we had made, the Transportation
and Public Works Committee voted unanimously during the week
of September 10 to remove the signs. On Friday, September
15, NFB of Minnesota members appeared at the Council meeting
at City Hall. When the full Council heard the committee
report, not a single comment was made in opposition. The
Council voted unanimously to remove the signs.

Not until Tuesday, September 26, did the signs actually
come down. The City of Minneapolis knows now that, if signs
for the blind are ever to be installed, it had better
consult the National Federation of the Blind first instead
of spending public money foolishly.

There you have it. Because of the decisive
action and determination of members of the National Federation of the Blind
of Minnesota, these obnoxious signs were removed. But the incident should be
a warning to each of us. We must all be vigilant and prepared to act with speed
and clarity in order to keep our own communities responsive to blind citizens
rather than to those who would preach nonsense on our behalf.

[PHOTO: James Omvig]

IF
I HAVE SEEN FURTHER:
THE BLIND SERVING COMMUNION?

by James H. Omvig

"My goodness, things are so bad
over there at the church, now that they even have the blind serving communion!"
So said an elderly, homebound member to one of her close friends and confidants
on a particular Monday morning.

The church in question was the one I attended for several years in Baltimore,
Maryland. The poor blind man who had supposedly been so abused by this congregation
was me. Here is how it all happened.

At the time of this incident I had been blind for many years and had been an
active member of this church for a short time. Years earlier, I had had the
great good fortune of encountering the National Federation of the Blind, and
I had experienced enormously valuable training and insight. I had been taught
(and had come emotionally to believe) that as a blind person I was simply a
normal human being who happened to be blind and that the opportunities for me
to work and participate fully in the world were limitless. I had also learned
that erroneous attitudes about blindness rather than the physical condition
of being blind are the most persistent problems with which each blind person
must deal on a daily basis. Finally, I had come to understand fully that as
a successful blind person I had an obligation to do what I could to help change
those existing, negative public attitudes.

I was living to the hilt what I had been taught by the Federation. I had become
an attorney and was the Director of a major program of the Social Security Administration
at its Baltimore headquarters. Additionally, I was married to a wonderful wife,
had a fine young son, served as Vice President of my Lions Club, was an active
member of my church's governing Board, and was also active in the local chapter
of the National Federation of the Blind. My life was in every way normal, if
busy.

A few weeks before the communion incident occurred, I had been asked by the
minister (we'll call him Bob) if I would be willing to have my name placed in
nomination to become one of the deacons of the church. I agreed and, as church
elections generally go, I was elected without a hitch. It had not occurred to
me that one of the duties of a deacon (at least, at this church) is to serve
communion at the Sunday service.

Some time after the election we had a day of planning and training. Early on,
the minister Bob came to my sighted wife (not to me) and said, "I'm making
out the communion-serving schedule of deacons for the year. Jim won't want to
serve communion, will he?"

My wife Sharon is also well grounded in proper attitudes about blindness and
in the knowledge that we have a lot of work to do to make things better. She
knew as well as I that Bob's real question was, "Since Jim is blind, he
wouldn't be able to serve communion, would he?"

Even so, she just smiled and said, "I think you had better ask Jim about
that." Then she came to me in another meeting and told me about Bob's question.

What was I to do? Or, more accurately, what were we to do, since my wife is
as concerned as I that we seize every possible opportunity to provide positive
educational experiences about blindness?

One thing was clear: It would not be helpful or even desirable for either of
us to become upset or angry. Far from useful, such a reaction would have served
only to teach the minister (and anyone else who happened to learn of it) that
the blind are not only helpless and incompetent but also rude and ill-tempered
on top of it. Frankly, I had not given a thought to the fact that deacons serve
communion or the way in which I as a blind person might accomplish the task.
I determined then and there, though, that it would be important for me to do
it and that I would find a way! The National Federation of the Blind had taught
me that. I decided to do it both because it was my duty as an elected deacon
and because this would be a marvelous opportunity through quiet example for
me to teach hundreds of people at a single stroke about blindness. We decided
that I would just wait until Bob came to speak with me. But, of course, he did
not come.

Some time in the early afternoon Bob
went to Sharon again and said, "Jim won't want to serve communion, will
he?" Again she said, "You need to talk to Jim about that." And
again she told me, and I waited a little longer. Finally, toward the end of
the day, Bob came to Sharon yet a third time. This time he sounded a little
impatient. He said, "You know, I have to finish this communion schedule
today. Jim won't want to be on it, will he?" This time Sharon said, "Come
along, Bob; let's go find Jim; and you can ask him. I can't speak for him."
When they found me, Bob asked if I would be willing to serve, and I casually
said, "Of course I will." He sounded more than a little concerned
and, with some awkwardness, he finally got around to asking, "But how will
you do it?"

At this church the deacons who are serving
gather at the back of the sanctuary and then walk two-by-two up to the front
of the church and up the steps to the altar. They take the trays from the minister
or elders and then go back down and serve the individual members of the congregation
row by row. When all have been served, the deacons return to the altar to leave
the trays and then walk again in pairs back to their seats. I told him that
I had not yet had the opportunity to think about it but that there was a way.
And there was, and I did! On the first day I served, the church was a-buzz.

Later Bob said to me with real warmth
and an obvious feeling of pride, "You were more of an inspiration here
today than I was. I actually saw people with tears in their eyes." So it
was that by Monday the story had spread throughout the congregation, even to
the shut-ins. It is true that the activity seemed noteworthy in the beginning--even
remarkable to some. But the end of the story was the most gratifying for Sharon
and me. For in a very short time whatever I did (whether it was serving communion
or serving as head of the finance committee or serving as a trustee) was accepted
as the ordinary and unremarkable activity of a church leader. My blindness simply
was no longer an issue.

As I look back now, I'm glad that the
question of serving communion came up. Bob learned from it, the members of the
congregation learned from it, and my wife and I learned, too. We came to have
an even deeper understanding of the normality of the blind and the ease with
which real education about blindness can be presented by each of us to the sighted
public. I don't know whether it is remarkable, or even unusual, for a blind
person to serve communion or to take an active position of lay leadership in
a church. Perhaps it is, but I think not.

As I relate this story, though, two or
three points which I do know for a certainty come to mind. First, I know that
it was important for me in this instance to be firm and confident and to do
my share. If I had simply decided that serving communion was not possible or
was too difficult or was just too much trouble, I would have contributed to
the erroneous attitudes about blind people which have kept us down and out through
the years and which I and others are working to change.

Second, I know that, when we as blind
people encounter those who have an attitude such as that displayed by Bob, we
can't afford the luxury of going off half-cocked or losing our cool. Nor do
we have any business trying to fix blame or to become bitter. What we need is
compassion and understanding. It is noteworthy, I think, that through the years
Bob has become one of my best friends and a true believer in the cause of the
blind.

Finally, I know that the work and education
which I had the opportunity to provide at my church were not mine alone. If
serving communion really was my taking a step beyond what other blind people
had done before me, then it was still made possible by those who had come before
me in the organized blind movement. They had had the wisdom to join together
for concerted action, and they had formulated constructive ideas. They had developed
a positive philosophy about blindness, and they had then shared their ideas
and philosophy and dreams with me and thousands like me. I believe that Sir
Isaac Newton best captured the essence of this concept when he said, "If
I have seen further, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants!"
As a blind person, whether it is working and supporting my family, serving as
an officer in a Lions Club, or serving communion at my church, I have truly
stood upon the shoulders of giants. And if I have seen further, it is because
of them--the founders and early leaders and members of the National Federation
of the Blind.

IN
MEMORY OF TWO FRIENDS

by Kenneth Jernigan

Less than a month apart this fall two
of my closest, long-time friends died--Elwyn Hemken, October 25, and Phil Parks,
November 10. Either of these losses would have been cause for personal sorrow.
Taken together, they were a severe blow. I first met Elwyn (born 1923) some
time in 1962. He had lost his sight as a result of diabetic retinopathy, and
in his usual way he had decided that he had to learn to deal with the new circumstances.
I had come to Iowa in 1958 to direct the State Commission for the Blind, and
our new Orientation Center program was getting into full swing. Elwyn was farming
at Blairsburg. He wanted to come to the Center as a student, but he felt he
couldn't leave the farm until he got things wrapped up for the winter. He became
a student in December of 1962, and he and I became close friends.

That friendship continued until the day
of his death. It was one of trust, mutual respect, and shared effort in a common
cause. Elwyn's wife Dorothy was truly a partner in all of his activities--farming,
community responsibilities, raising their children, and the work of the organized
blind movement. Dorothy was as strong a Federationist as Elwyn was, and I know
she will continue that way now that he is gone.

If you wanted to find words to describe
Elwyn and Dorothy, you might use genuineness, determination, honesty, and integrity.
You never had to wonder where Elwyn stood on a question, and nobody ever browbeat
or bullied him into doing anything he thought wasn't right. He left the Commission
Orientation Center in the spring of 1963 to do his farming for the year, and
he came back the next December to finish his training. He farmed until his retirement
in 1993. Starting in the 1960's, he ran a successful insurance business. Also
starting in the 1960's, he became intensely active in the National Federation
of the Blind. He was more than just active. He was dedicated, and his commitment
never diminished.

He was appointed to the Board of the
Iowa Commission for the Blind in the fall of 1968 and became Chairman in 1972.
He continued in that position throughout the rest of my time in Iowa. Through
good times and bad, he was a rock of stability--always reliable, never hesitating
to speak his mind, and absolutely fearless when somebody tried to pressure us.
That was Elwyn. As to Phil (born 1938), he was also a close friend. As with
Elwyn, I met him in the 60's, established an immediate friendship, and continued
it the rest of his life. Phil never did anything by halves. He was for you or
against you, no in-between. And he was the same way with the activities he undertook.
If he believed something, he believed it. If he didn't, he didn't. Phil's wife
Joyce was always willing and supportive. She stood by Phil in good times and
bad. She worked with him in the Federation, and she contributed time and effort
in her own right. I remember a time in the 60's when I went waterskiing with
a group of students from the Iowa Commission for the Blind. Phil was among the
number. He had never waterskied, and it was clear that he wondered if he could.
When he came out of the water after successfully making the attempt, his first
words were: "By God, if I can do that, I can support a family and make
a living." He could, and he did. Phil Parks and Elwyn Hemken, names that
remind me of a bygone wonderful era in the State of Iowa--an era which presaged
and foreshadowed dynamic developments in the organized blind movement throughout
the nation.

Many blind people who may never have
heard of Elwyn Hemken or Phil Parks owe much to both of them. When going was
tough and resources scarce, each of them in his own way stood forth to be counted.
They worked and cared and believed. They did what they could and gave what they
had. Nobody can do more. Elwyn and Phil, sleep well. The work you helped pioneer
goes forward with growing momentum. Your names will not be forgotten.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Noel Nightingale]

LEADERSHIP
EMPOWERMENT:
REFLECTIONS ON THE FAMILY

by Noel Nightingale

From the Editor: The following article
first appeared in the Summer, 1995, edition of the Blind Washingtonian, a publication
of the NFB of Washington. Noel Nightingale graduated a year and a half ago from
the University of Washington School of Law. Upon successfully passing the State
of Washington's Bar exam, she took time before beginning her current job to
go to the Louisiana Center for the Blind to learn the blindness skills she knew
she would need to do her job effectively. She originally delivered the following
remarks in January of 1995 at the National Association of Blind Students Midwinter
Conference, which takes place each year immediately preceding the Washington
Seminar. This is what she said:

I have a personal story of empowerment in my own life
as a blind person. My father is blind and has been since he
was twenty-six years old, when he lost his eyesight in a
work accident (long before I was born). After he was
blinded, my dad lay on a couch in his parents' home for
about a year. Then he got off the couch, learned the
alternative techniques of blindness, and got a guide dog. He
went back to the college he had graduated from years earlier
and took classes using Braille notetaking and his other
newfound blindness skills.

When he determined that he could indeed successfully
compete in an academic environment as a blind person, he
applied to the University of Chicago Law School and was
admitted. During the time that he was attending college
classes he met my mother, and they were married.

Ultimately, after encountering many difficulties in
securing a job as a lawyer, my father became an
administrative law judge for the State of Washington.

As a child I never knew my dad to miss out on anything
he wanted to do because of blindness. He is an avid (some
say rabid) fisherman and has flown as far as New Zealand to
catch the big one.

He travelled all over the state to conduct hearings as
the state's only judge hearing administrative cases
involving state liquor license violations. He read
voraciously. He socialized as much as my friends' parents.
All my life people have told me how amazing my dad is
because of all he does as a blind person.

So when I was twenty and found out that I have
retinitis pigmentosa, a degenerative eye disorder, I knew
from Dad's example that blindness could not prevent me from
living out my dreams and enjoying life. And although having
merely known my father has been the most powerful influence
in molding my attitude about blindness, ever since learning
that I have RP, my dad has continually encouraged me to
obtain the alternative techniques of blindness. He has
harped at me particularly to learn Braille. In fact, I have
never met such an enthusiastic promoter of Braille.

Although he does not know it and probably did not
intend it, I am immensely thankful for having had my dad to
look to for all the possibilities still available to me in
life as a blind person. I certainly procrastinated in
obtaining the skills of blindness until it became glaringly
clear that I was not operating at maximum efficiency. But
because of my dad's model I do think I had a head start in
developing positive attitudes about blindness.

While I have known for a while that my father's travel
skills are not ideal, to say the least, I have never known
him not to get wherever he wanted to go. (A few years ago I
was horrified to learn that he had flown to Alaska to go
fishing, by himself, without a cane or a guide dog, relying
solely on the arms of strangers.) However, I have always
assumed that my dad's Braille skills were excellent. When I
recently completed learning Grade II Braille, I wrote my dad
a letter and was quite emotionally overcome when I got a
letter in return. I had never in my life communicated with
my dad in writing. Yet when I opened the letter, I could not
read it. It was a jumble of signs and who knows what, but it
was not the Braille I knew. I think that he has invented his
own shorthand over the years, and since he was communicating
only with himself, it didn't matter that it did not conform
to the code.

My mother, on the other hand, while having a relatively
good attitude about the abilities of blind people, has
focused on utilizing my remaining vision. She is always on
the lookout for the newest enlarging technology. She wants
to buy me those closed circuit television goggles that
recently came on the market. (I have a hard time imagining
myself walking around a professional office with those
things on.) I'm afraid that, if I had had only my mother to
guide me, I would still not know Braille or use a cane, and
as a result I would have a very poor self-image.

The point is that, although my father's blindness
skills could be characterized as poor, he has empowered me
to become as skilled in the alternative techniques of
blindness as I can possibly be and has given me a powerful
example of a blind person who does not let blindness prevent
him from working and enjoying life. Many of us in this room
may believe that we do not have all of the blindness skills
we would like--that we are not super-blind. Nevertheless, we
can empower other blind people to become as independent and
skilled as possible, and we can win our families'
confidence. We can have a positive attitude about the role
blindness plays in our lives and lead as independent a life
as possible, even if we are not perfectly skilled in all of
the techniques of blindness. That is the important work we
in the National Association of Blind Students can do every
day of our lives.

To be leaders--that is, to empower our fellow blind
people to take control of their lives and strive for true
independence--we need not see ourselves as perfectly skilled
in the alternative techniques of blindness. We must,
however, tackle life with an enthusiasm and energy that
reflect our inner confidence and peace of mind about
blindness. What really counts is what is in our hearts and
minds, not what is happening with our fingers and feet.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Laura Wolk (eight) is
pictured with her father Michael Wolk (left) and Governor of Pennsylvania Tom
Ridge (right)]

THE
LITTLEST LOBBYIST

by Judy Jobes

From the Editor: One way and another
Federationists spend a good bit of time working to educate elected officials
about the actual problems facing blind citizens and the legislative and regulatory
responses that would truly solve them. We avoid the word "lobbying"
to describe this activity because we are citizens speaking about the issues
that affect our own lives and because we have no funds at our disposal to use
in persuading officials to vote our way as do the representatives of big labor
and big business. So it was with some disquiet that I first read the title of
the following story.

In point of fact, the members of
the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania who went to speak with
Governor Ridge about the importance of enacting Braille literacy legislation
were not advocating a measure that would assist them. Some members of the group
were already good Braille readers; some had been denied Braille as children
and as a result would never become rapid Braille readers or benefit from improved
Braille instruction in the schools; but they all knew something that the Governor
did not: blind children must be taught Braille early by teachers who know the
code well and believe in its effectiveness if they are to have a chance to become
competent, literate adults. The group of Federationists had also brought their
secret weapon--Laura Wolk.

I toyed with the idea of changing
the title of Judy Jobes's story of the group's meeting with the Governor, but
somehow "The Eight-Year-Old Educator" did not achieve the ring of
Judy's title. So meet the littlest lobbyist from Allentown, Pennsylvania, and
her Federation friends:

The heavy wooden doors opened, and the Governor's
secretary ushered us into his office. The Governor received
us warmly. Governor Ridge had served as my Congressman and
had worked with us on many issues. I introduced him to my
colleagues in turn, leaving eight-year-old Laura until last.
Governor Ridge directed us to a table at the far end of the
room. He told Laura he had been waiting to meet her and
asked her to sit next to him at the head of the table.

I made my presentation. Only 9 percent of blind
children are taught to read Braille today, and the
illiteracy rate among all blind children is 40 percent. To
date twenty-seven states have enacted Braille bills, a
figure which illustrates the need to legislate a solution
rather than to evoke ineffective regulations and standards.

Then it was Laura's turn. On cue she read the letter
she had written to the Governor. Her small fingers easily
and quickly identified the Braille dot formations, enabling
her to read proficiently beyond her years. Her letter read
like this:

My name is Laura Wolk. I am eight years old and going
into the third grade. I have been reading Braille since I
was three years old. My teacher's name is Mrs. Betz.
Last spring I made my First Communion. I Brailled
Scripture and read it from the altar.

The most difficult thing about Braille is getting
enough books. I quickly read a book and have to wait a very
long time to get another one. I need more books.

The Governor watched Laura intently. He was in awe as
Laura read. He came to understand firsthand the value of
Braille. Laura concluded her letter by saying: "Governor, my
wish is that all children who do not see well could learn to
read like me."

We continued with our presentations. The Governor
leaned over and said something to Laura. She whispered,
"Yes." Excusing himself from us for a moment, the Governor
walked to his desk. He opened a drawer, took something from
it, returned to the table, and asked if anyone would like to
join him and Laura in sharing some jelly beans. We all
smiled, and the bag went around the table as each of us
helped ourselves to a few jelly beans.

The meeting proceeded as Ted Young, President of the
National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania, and the
Governor continued to discuss issues relevant to blind
Pennsylvanians. As the meeting concluded, the Governor again
engaged Laura in conversation, asking her about piano
lessons and proclaiming that he might just take in one of
her recitals.

The Governor concluded our meeting by explaining to
Laura that a lobbyist is someone who comes to see people
like him, who are elected, and discuss issues which are
important to them. He said that he had never had a lobbyist
come to see him who had been as young or as effective. We
posed for pictures, and our meeting ended.

Regrouping in the hall, we shared our
impressions of the Governor's reactions to our issues. Laura opened her small
hand, proudly displaying two, by now rather sticky, jelly beans and announced
that she was keeping those jelly beans; after all the Governor had given them
to her. Accepting gifts from public officials is not usually the way things
are done in lobbying circles. For the sake of Pennsylvania's blind students,
however, let's hope it was effective.

_______________________________________________________________

If you or a friend would like to remember the National
Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by
employing the following language:

"I give, devise, and bequeath unto
the National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland
21230, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of $__________(or
"______ percent of my net estate" or "The following stocks and
bonds: ________") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of blind
persons."

_______________________________________________________________

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Barbara Pierce]

WE
DON'T HAVE NORTH HERE

by Barbara Pierce

From the Editor: The following story
appeared in Toothpaste and Railroad Tracks, the most recent in the Federation's
Kernel Book Series of paperbacks. Here it is, beginning with Dr. Jernigan's
introduction:

People tend to be curious about blindness. Perhaps the
single item which arouses the most curiosity is how a person
can, without seeing where he or she is going, move about
without assistance both inside and out. Despite appearances
there's no magic involved. Barbara Pierce addresses the
subject in the story that follows. Here is what she has to
say:

Blindness is both frightening and puzzling to most
people. It's frightening because most people depend
completely on their eyes to tell them about the world, so
the idea of moving and working and playing without that
information is more than unnerving. It's puzzling because
people have no notion how anybody could gather enough
information using a cane to travel safely.

Some years ago the five-year-old daughter of an
acquaintance began talking to her mother about the magic
lady who passed their house every day. My friend could not
imagine what the child meant until the day she called her
mother to the window to see me walking past on my way to the
hospital where I served as chaplain. I was moving my long
white cane in an arc in front of me, and the little girl
triumphantly explained that I had to be magic since I was
there, and the leash was there, but the dog I was walking
was invisible.

Even without believing in invisible dogs, many people
tend to behave as though some sort of magic were associated
with the use of the white cane. It doesn't seem possible to
them that a person could travel safely and confidently by
moving a cane, listening to traffic noise and the echoes
made by the cane tip, noting wind and sun direction, and
feeling the contours of the ground.

In reality blind people depend on finding objects with
a light tap of the cane and then avoiding them. The long
white cane is very good at identifying cars parked across
sidewalks, holes in the street, and parking meters.

It is hard for sighted people to believe that blind
people really do know where they are and where they are
bound. I have a blind friend who entered the elevator in her
office building one morning to find that the only other
passenger was a gentleman. As she stepped in, he inquired,
"Do you know what floor you want?" She smiled and pushed the
correct button, but she wondered what he thought she was
planning to do in the elevator if she didn't know where she
was going.

As a blind traveler I always appreciate receiving
accurate information in an unfamiliar area. In my work I
travel a good deal, so I frequently find myself in
unfamiliar airports. I was once walking toward the ground
transportation area of an airport new to me when I became
aware that a man was following me down the almost deserted
concourse.

My cane touched a sign post, and I detoured around it
and continued toward the exit. The man said, "I don't
understand how you walk so straight." I commented that I had
obviously not been walking quite straight or I would not
have touched the sign. He replied, "I have been watching you
for a hundred yards, and I know what you've done." I
explained that the public address speakers in the ceiling,
the periodic metal strips running across the concourse, and
the conversation of other people all helped me walk along
the proper path.

As we came to the terminal, I asked him for directions
to the escalator. Without a pause he said, "Thirty feet
ahead at two o'clock." I thanked him and commented that he
must be a pilot. He was surprised that I had guessed his
occupation, but pilots, too, have to know where they are and
how to talk about it.

Many people find it hard to give good directions to a
blind person, and sometimes the stress of giving directions
is just too much. I will never forget a conversation I had
with a member of the staff of a hotel in which I was staying
for a week.

On the first morning of my visit I was standing in the
lobby with my secretary, asking her questions about the
floor plan of the area. We were having a hard time
communicating without using the points of the compass for
reference. So I stopped an employee to ask which way north
was. The woman paused a moment and then announced, "We don't
have north here."

I assured her that even though the river flowing
through the city meant that the streets did not run exactly
north-south and east-west, compasses still indicated north
in that part of the world, but she still couldn't tell me
which way it was. In the end I had to put my question to
someone else.

In short, there is nothing magical about using a long
white cane. It takes practice, common sense, and good
information. You can help.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Barbara Hall]

MY
FIRST CONVENTION

by Barbara Ann Hall

From the Editor: Barbara Ann Hall
is a member of the Phoenix Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Arizona. She attended her first National Convention in Chicago last summer,
and it had a profound effect on her. When she got home, she tried to get the
experience down on paper in the hope that it might persuade someone else to
seek the same opportunity this year in Anaheim. This is what she says:

Before I attended the 1995 convention, my NFB friends
who had attended previous conventions advised me on what to
expect. They told me it would be fun, interesting, and
educational. More important, they assured me that I would
meet many interesting people and make new friends. They were
right on both counts. They also advised me on packing: nice
clothes for the daytime sessions, sweaters to protect
against enthusiastic air conditioning, and something dressy
for the banquet. (Boy did I over-pack!) They also made
suggestions about which meetings I was most likely to enjoy
and told me stories about their own past convention
experiences. My chapter President, Mrs. Judith Tunell,
promised me it would be an experience I would never forget
without really elaborating on what she meant. Our state
President Ruth Swenson explained that throughout the
convention special-interest groups would meet. Several of
these (like medical transcriptionists) were particularly
interesting to me. She advised me to attend as many of these
sessions as I could fit in. I assumed this would be easy to
do since the convention would last seven days and the groups
were to meet throughout the entire period. Boy was I
surprised! Somehow I could not manage to attend all the
sessions I would have liked.

My Federation friends summarized their advice by saying
that attending the convention would give me a complete look
inside the NFB and its goals and purposes. They all said,
"You just have to be there." Well they were right. No one
can prepare you for the feelings and emotions of a
convention. They have to be experienced firsthand.

People in my affiliate gave me assistance in making my
room and airline reservations properly, and they also gave
me some financial assistance, for which I was very grateful.
Chicago might as well be my hometown. I was born and
raised just a few miles away, so I knew the town well. For
me, the expectation of going home added a little more
excitement to my anticipation since I had not been home in
over eight years. O'Hare Airport seemed like an old friend.
It still pretty well matched my memories of it from years
ago. After arriving at the hotel, checking in, and settling
in my room, I was ready to explore the beautiful Hilton
Hotel. From the very beginning the staff were wonderful.
They were helpful, polite, and kind in answering every
question I asked them.

When our chapter president arrived, she made sure that
I knew what the itinerary was and advised me again on what
to attend. She especially encouraged me to attend the Job-
Opportunities-for-the-Blind-sponsored breakfast meetings
with those who had common interests. At my first breakfast
meeting the next morning--it was for first-timers--I was
privileged to have Mrs. tenBroek at my table. I had a
marvelous conversation with her on the beginnings of the
NFB. What a delightful lady! I told Mrs. tenBroek that I was
trying to keep up with my exercise program while I was at
the convention by walking up the stairs from the fourth to
the twenty-third floor of the hotel. The next morning, when
I saw her again, she told me that I had some competition
because she had taken to walking up the grand staircase of
the hotel (twice) so that she could keep in shape too. We
sought each other out and had breakfast several times during
the convention.

I was lucky enough to meet both Mr. Maurer and Dr.
Jernigan the first day of the convention, and my
introduction to them so early in the week made a real impact
on me. Somehow everything during the rest of the convention
held more meaning as a result. These are two very positive,
inspirational men, and their interest in me personally made
me feel important to them. Their speeches during the first
general session set the tone for the rest of the convention.
The only word I can use for these initial speeches and all
those that followed is inspirational. I have tried to find
the words to express my feelings during that first session,
but I cannot. It moved me deeply to hear of all that this
organization has done in the past year and continues to do
for the blind of this country.

In an effort to thank the NFB for the assistance I had
been given to attend the convention, I participated in an
Arizona fund-raiser during convention sessions. Dr. Verna
Brasher, a member of the Phoenix Chapter and a skilled
chiropractor, offered to provide relaxation massages at the
PAC table during convention sessions to raise money for both
the national organization and the Arizona affiliate. I
scheduled the appointments, timed the massages, and did the
accounting. The benefit to me was that as a result I met
many exciting and interesting people. This experience is one
of my most cherished memories of the convention.

There are many wonderful people to meet and stories to
hear at an NFB convention. Throughout the convention
everyone was upbeat. I never heard a cross word from anyone.
No one was a stranger. We just walked up to people and
introduced ourselves, and a conversation (perhaps even a
friendship) developed. Meeting all these people with whom we
have something in common filled our days. We shared our
experiences, problems, and solutions. This turned out to be
a most delightful part of the convention for me. We are
truly one!

As I have already said, there were too many activities
to fit into a day, and I missed many things I would have
liked to learn more about. The exhibits contained a lot of
information I needed and much information I could take home
to share with others. I purchased some equipment, and my
state president decided to replace my rehab-issued cane with
an NFB cane of the proper length. After this she decided
that I also needed some proper travel instruction, so she
arranged for me to meet with a Federationist, Doug Boone of
D. Boone Consultants in Nebraska. Doug is experienced in
educating and rehabilitating blind people. I learned more
from him in one hour than I had learned from the rehab
instructor during my entire training. Experiences like this
one made me realize how little I knew and how much I needed
to learn about blindness.

The banquet dinner and speech were the highlight of
this exciting week for me. Mr. Maurer's speech was amusing
and poignant. He has a way of making us see what all our
work is about. It turned out to be a wonderful time for me
as a first-time conventioneer.

During the final meetings and convention sessions I
focused my thinking on what my part in helping bring the
NFB's goals to fruition should be. I had already
participated in fund-raising activities at home, but my goal
has always been to focus on finding new members in our
state. I know many blind people who are not NFB members. I
concluded that they needed to be. This convention focused my
thoughts about helping our chapter in spreading the word
about the NFB. Some people actually do not know what the
Federation is all about. I want to encourage them to join so
they can benefit as much as I have. I recognize that in the
months ahead there will be many things I can do individually
to help reach our common goals. I was sorry to see the
convention come to an end because it had been so exciting,
informative, and fun.

When I got home, I needed a few days to recuperate from
the constant activity of the convention. During that rest I
thought about all of the things I had learned and all of the
information I had gathered. I had a few ideas before I went
to the convention about things I could do to help the
organization, and now I have a focused goal. I want to pass
information on to others who are interested in the needs of
the blind and to encourage them to join the NFB. Our chapter
is initiating a membership drive, and this is one area on
which I will focus my activities.

The convention made me see what needs to be done and
gave me many ideas about how I might contribute to the
effort. One thing I found that I needed to do was to write
this article and share with others the feelings that the
convention brought to me. To anyone who has not yet attended
an NFB National Convention, I would say this: "If you do
nothing else for yourself in the next year, make a
commitment to attend the convention in California in 1996.
It will be the most important investment you can make for
yourself." The combination of inspirational speeches,
information-gathering, new friendships, and common
experiences made the convention in Chicago just such a week
for me. I hope to meet many more Federationists next year!

[PHOTO/CAPTION: The Anaheim Hilton &
Towers]

CALIFORNIA
CALLING

by Deana Bates

From the Editor: Deana Bates is a
leader in the Orange County Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of California. As a resident of Southern California she is qualified to provide
Monitor readers with information about the area surrounding the site of the
1996 convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Here is what she has
to say:

The members of the National Federation of the Blind of
California are honored and pleased to host the 1996
convention of the National Federation of the Blind, to be
held in Anaheim, California, from June 29 through July 6. As
you already know, our convention will be held at the Anaheim
Hilton. Anaheim is twenty miles south of Los Angeles and is
located in Orange County. Since California is the perfect
place for both work and play,we know that you will find this
year's convention one of the best we have ever had.

California appeals to people with diverse interests because
it has a wide variety of things to do and places to see. In
this little article we would like to tell you about some of
the state's history and give you some general information
about Southern California.

California lies in the Pacific Coast Region of the
United States and is bordered by Oregon, Nevada, Arizona,
and Mexico. The surface of California is more varied than
that of any other state. It ranges from forests to farms,
mountains to valleys, and desert to seacoast.

California, also known as the Golden State, is the
third largest state in the Union. The name California was
used officially in Spanish documents as early as 1542.
Historians speculate that it came from the description of a
fabled island called California in a sixteenth-century
Spanish novel called The Exploits of Esplandian by Garcia
Ordonez de Montalvo. California's nickname, the Golden
State, comes from its golden poppies, the state flower, as
well as from the gold which was discovered in 1848.

California became a state in 1850 and since that time
has had the largest population growth of any area in the
United States. The 1990 census shows that California ranked
number one with a population of over twenty-nine million
people.

Southern California is often referred to as the
Southland by its residents and is made up of Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, and Ventura
Counties. San Bernardino County is the largest county in the
United States, according to Compton's World Encyclopedia.

Anaheim, known as the Mother Colony of Southern
California, was founded in 1857 by German Settlers from San
Francisco. The city was named after the nearby Santa Ana
River. The German word "heim," which means home, was added
as a suffix. The major crop produced at the time was grapes.
However, in the 1880's the grape vines were destroyed by a
blight, and when growers' attempts to restore the vineyards
failed, Valencia oranges and other crops were introduced.

Orange County is one of the most popular tourist
destinations in Southern California. We have three amusement
parks: Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, and Wild Rivers. We
also have various museums such as the Movieland Wax Museum,
Hobby City Doll Museum, Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum,
and the Richard Nixon Library/Museum.

Step back into the English Renaissance with dinner at
Medieval Times. Here you will sip soup from a metallic bowl
and dine on fowl as you watch expert horsemen joust with
their opponents.

Approximately fifteen miles from Anaheim are the
Pacific Ocean and Newport Beach, where one can cruise the
harbor or surf the ocean. Laguna Beach, still further south
from Newport Beach, has numerous art galleries. At the
Laguna Beach Sawdust Festival, in operation for most of the
summer, you can browse the art boutiques. Anaheim Stadium is
the home of the California Angels baseball team. If you want
to bet on the horses, you can go to the Alamitos Race Track,
which is located in Los Alamitos, a city in Orange County,
approximately ten miles west of Anaheim. Los Angeles and San
Diego also offer wonderful places to visit. In Los Angeles
tour the Universal Studios, where you can see famous movie
sets and get a panoramic view of the Hollywood Hills and the
San Fernando Valley. You can also enjoy the Chinese theater
and the Farmers Market. San Diego offers both Sea World and
the San Diego Zoo, one of the largest zoos in the world. You
can take a Harbor cruise at the marina in San Diego, the
gateway to Mexico. Visit Tijuana, Mexico, where you can
bargain with local shop owners for their wares.

We are planning to make this the best Federation
convention ever, so we hope you will plan to come to sunny
Southern California.

Here are the rates for the 1996 convention: singles,
$45 per night; doubles, $47; triples, $54; and quads, $57.
In addition to the room rates, there is a tax--just under 15
percent at the time these rates were negotiated. There will
be no charge for children in a room with parents as long as
no extra bed is required. To make room reservations for the
1996 convention, you should write directly to Anaheim
Hilton, 777 Convention Way, Anaheim, California 92802-3497,
Attention: Reservations; or call (714) 750-4321. Hilton has
a national toll-free number, but do not (we emphasize NOT)
use it. Reservations made through this national number will
not be valid. They must be made directly with the Anaheim
Hilton in Anaheim.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: James Gashel]

SOCIAL
SECURITY AND SSI FACTS FOR 1996

by James Gashel

From the Editor: Jim Gashel serves
as Director of Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind.
Here is his 1996 report on Social Security and Supplemental Security Income:

The beginning of each year brings with it annual
adjustments in Social Security programs. The changes include
new tax rates, higher exempt earnings amounts, and
cost-of-living increases. Each year we make an effort to
report on these changes in the January issue of the Braille Monitor. This year is no exception. However, the budget
controversy at the federal level has made it impossible this
year to include information on the annual adjustments in the
Medicare program. For that reason the Medicare changes will
be reported later. Meanwhile, here are the new facts which
we can report for 1996:

FICA and Self-Employment Tax Rates: The FICA tax rate
for employees and their employers remains at 7.65 percent.
This rate includes payments to the Old Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund of 6.2 percent and
an additional 1.45 percent payment to the Hospital Insurance
(HI) Trust Fund, from which payments under Medicare are
made. Self-employed persons continue to pay a Social
Security tax of 15.3 percent. The self-employment tax rate
of 15.3 percent includes 12.4 percent which is paid to the
OASDI trust fund and 2.9 percent which is paid to the HI
trust fund.

Ceiling on Earnings Subject to Tax: During 1995 the
ceiling on taxable earnings for contributions to the OASDI
trust fund was $61,200. The taxable income ceiling for
contributions to the OASDI trust fund during 1996 is
$62,700. As was true in 1995, there is no ceiling on
earnings that are subject to the HI trust fund tax
contribution of 1.45 percent for employees or 2.9 percent
for self-employed persons.

Quarters of Coverage: Eligibility for retirement,
survivors, and disability insurance benefits is based in
large part on the number of quarters of coverage earned by
any individual during periods of work. Anyone may earn up to
four quarters of coverage during a single year. During 1995
a Social Security quarter of coverage was credited for
earnings of $630 in any calendar quarter. Anyone who earned
$2,520 for the year (regardless of when the earnings
occurred during the year) was given four quarters of
coverage. In 1996 a Social Security quarter of coverage will
be credited for earnings of $640 during a calendar quarter.
Four quarters can be earned with annual earnings of $2,560.

Exempt Earnings: The earnings exemption for blind
people receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
benefits is the same as the exempt amount for individuals
age 65 through 69 who receive Social Security retirement
benefits. The monthly exempt amount in 1995 was $940 of
gross earned income. During 1996 the exempt amount is $960.
Technically, this exemption is referred to as an amount of
monthly gross earnings which does not show "substantial
gainful activity." Earnings of $960 or more per month before
taxes for a blind SSDI beneficiary in 1996 will show
substantial gainful activity after subtracting any unearned
(or subsidy) income and applying any deductions for
impairment-related work expenses.

Social Security Benefit Amounts for 1996: All Social
Security benefits (including retirement, survivors,
disability, and dependents' benefits) are increased by 2.6
percent beginning with the checks received in January, 1996.
The exact dollar increase for any individual will depend
upon the amount being paid.

This month's recipes come from Cynthia Handel of the
National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania. For the
past eleven years she has been the Treasurer of the NFB of
Pennsylvania. In addition to cooking, she says she enjoys
reading both fiction and non-fiction and writing. She is
currently learning to use her personal computer.
In addition to its Amish community, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, is known for good Pennsylvania Dutch cooking.
The recipe included here for Cracker Pudding is served in
many of the family-style restaurants frequented by tourists
and visited on occasion by residents of Lancaster County.
Cindy says that she has collected the other recipes from her
mother and friends over the years.

MEATBALLS

These are good to make ahead of time and freeze to use
as needed.

Ingredients:

3 pounds ground beef

1 can evaporated milk

1 cup oatmeal

1 cup cracker crumbs

2 eggs

1/2 cup chopped onion

1 teaspoon garlic powder

2 teaspoons salt

1/4 teaspoon pepper

2 teaspoons chili powder

favorite spaghetti sauce

Method: Mix all ingredients together except for
spaghetti sauce. Cover bottom of large baking dish with
sauce. Make small meatballs and arrange on bottom of baking
dish. Spoon about a teaspoon spaghetti sauce over each
meatball. Bake in 350-degree oven for 55 minutes.

TAMALE PIE

Ingredients:

1-1/2 pounds ground beef

1 onion, chopped garlic, chopped to taste

salt and pepper to taste

1 tablespoon hot chili powder

1 6-ounce can tomato sauce

1 can refried beans

grated Monterey Jack Jalapeno cheese

Method: Combine all but last two ingredients and simmer
until almost dry. Pour into a 10-inch pie plate. Add one can
refried beans, diluted with a little water. Top with grated
Monterey Jack Jalapeno cheese. Bake in 350-degree oven for
25 minutes. Serve hot with tortilla chips.

CHINESE ALMOND CHICKEN

Ingredients:

4 boneless chicken breasts, skinned and
cut into bite-size pieces

4 tablespoons oil

3 tablespoons flour

1-1/4 teaspoons sugar

6 tablespoons soy sauce

2 cups sliced mushrooms

1 green pepper, chopped

1 onion, chopped

1 cup sliced almonds

Method: Stir-fry chicken in wok or large frying pan in
two tablespoons hot oil. Mix flour, sugar, and soy sauce.
Add to chicken and cook five minutes, stirring constantly.
Add vegetables. Cover and cook twenty minutes or until
chicken is tender. Brown almonds in two tablespoons oil.
Drain on paper towel, then add to chicken mixture. Serve
over rice.

PINEAPPLE CAKE

Ingredients:

2 cups flour

2 cups sugar

1 teaspoon baking soda

2 eggs

1 large can crushed pineapple with juice

Method: Combine all ingredients in large mixing bowl.
Pour into ungreased 9-by-13-inch pan. Bake in 350-degree
oven for thirty-five to forty minutes.

Icing:

1 8-ounce package cream cheese, softened

1 stick butter, softened

1 cup powdered sugar

Method: Combine all ingredients and beat well. Spread
icing over cake while still warm.

This is a sweet desert served in many Lancaster County
family-style restaurants.

Ingredients:

5 cups milk

1 cup sugar

1 cup cracker crumbs, graham or saltine
(or Ritz and graham)

1 cup coconut

2 eggs, separated

1 teaspoon vanilla

Method: Combine milk, sugar, crumbs, and coconut
together. Add egg yolks and blend. Stir over medium heat
until mixture coats the back of the spoon and is slightly
thickened. Remove from heat and fold in stiffly beaten egg
whites and vanilla. Refrigerate.

MONITOR
MINIATURES

Turning Upside-down for the Federation:

Federationists have many talents, and
many find remarkable ways of putting them to work for the organization. Several
months ago Ed McDonald, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
West Virginia and a member of the Board of Directors of the NFB, mentioned to
friends that he could still stand on his head. They expressed a certain amount
of incredulity at this statement, so Ed demonstrated his prowess. First one
then another of those present offered to contribute $100 to the affiliate if
Ed would repeat his feat at the 1995 West Virginia banquet. Ed agreed that,
if they could raise at least $1,000 for the treasury, he would stand on his
head for at least ten seconds during the banquet. Suffice it to say, the West
Virginia affiliate is $1,000 richer than it was before its convention.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: For sale, Optelec, 20/20 low vision reading system. New in 1993,
used only five months, like-new condition, and complete with original carton
and manual. Original cost over $3,000, asking $2,000. Call Dave in Sparks, Maryland,
(410) 472-4366.

Elected:

Mary Belle Rea, Secretary of the National
Federation of the Blind of Arkansas, reports that new officers were elected
at the affiliate's recent annual convention. They are Buffa Hans, President;
Everett Saterfield, First Vice President; Nancy Matthews, Second Vice President;
Mary Belle Rea, Secretary; and Jimmy Sparks, Treasurer. Les McDaniel and Sherry
Martin were elected to serve on the Board.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Stephanie Pieck is selling a Porta-Thiel Braille embosser in excellent
condition. It comes with Braille and print manuals, power cord, and interface
cable. Asking $1,800, will provide technical assistance to the purchaser and
will pay the cost of shipping. For more information, call (518) 861-7064 after
8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Linda Oliva (back left)
and Kathy Burnside (back right), instructors in the Senior Blind Program at
BLIND, Inc., are pictured here with the four members of the first graduating
class.]

Never Too Old to Learn:

Blindness Learning in New Dimensions
(BLIND, Inc.) proudly announces its first graduating class of seniors under
the Older Blind Program sponsored by State Services for the Blind, Minnesota's
state rehabilitation agency. Seniors in the first class began on May 31, 1995.
They met once a week to receive training in Braille; travel with the long white
cane; home management skills; and, most important, installing batteries correctly
in card shufflers. (When batteries are installed incorrectly, the card shuffler
throws the cards all over the room, and you play fifty-two pick-up.) On August
23 the students were ready to graduate. Joyce Scanlan, Executive Director of
BLIND, Inc., presented each one with a beautiful certificate and a gold framed
sun catcher in the shape of an eagle. (The eagle is the symbol that sits on
top of the freedom bell received by each graduate of the comprehensive orientation-to-blindness
training program at BLIND.) Several of the older students' counselors from State
Services for the Blind were on hand to congratulate them on the big day. Also
present were Assistant Commissioner Richard Davis and family, and friends of
the students. Since the first class began, there have been five other classes.
Nearly every one who starts the Older Blind classes at BLIND, Inc., completes
the course. The demand for this program has been unbelievable. Contrary to what
most rehab counselors seem to believe, seniors recognize that they have many
good years left, even when they are over eighty-five, and want good blindness
skills to help them enjoy their remaining years with style.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Type 'n Speak in excellent condition with leather carrying case,
headphones, AC/DC adapter, and instructions. Asking $850 or best offer. Call
Charles at (541) 752-2373 between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

Attention Connoisseurs of Infomercials:

We received the following information
from Penny Frasier of California. It seemed particularly relevant in the light
of Resolution 95-06, passed by last summer's National Convention. This announcement
is for people who are late night TV addicts or have an interest in infomercials.
Blind or visually impaired people who want to purchase items or services sold
on infomercials are unable to obtain the address and telephone number for the
desired product or service because they are displayed on the screen but not
announced. This is your chance to voice your concerns about this dilemma. Here
are the names of a marketing firm and the person that edits a newsletter for
companies who produce infomercials. You should express your opinions about this
problem. The more letters we write, the more weight we will carry with the company.
Write to Chris Ourand, Editor, National Infomercial Marketing Association, 1201
New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1260, Washington, D.C. 20005. Mention that you
read this notice in the Braille Monitor.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Reading Edge, excellent condition, includes latest release of
software; Braille and print editions of the manuals; and a comprehensive service
agreement, which is valid until October, 1996. Contact Robert Feinstein at 1750
East 14th Street, Apartment 2-E, Brooklyn, New York 11229, or call (718) 627-0713.
Will accept Braille, print, or cassette replies.

New Chapter:

Steve Benson, President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Illinois, recently wrote to announce the founding
of the Four Rivers Chapter, which covers a large part of southern Illinois.
The Four Rivers Chapter begins Federation business with a capable corps of leaders:
Cathie Mathis, President; Lisa Belville, Vice President; Tammy Dothager, Secretary;
Shawn Mayo, Treasurer; and Brian Sumner, Board member. The leaders and members
of the new chapter say that they view the Federation work ahead of them as a
challenge to be met with enthusiasm and resolve.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Thermoform in good condition. Comes with manual and paper. Asking
$1,500, or best offer. Contact Eric Foss at 4450 California Avenue, Room 222,
Bakersfield, California 93309, or call (805) 322-5476.

Publication Available:

Loren Schmitt, a member of the National
Federation of the Blind of Iowa, has asked us to carry the following announcement:
Now available on tape. Spanish as well as English. The Militant, a socialist
news weekly, published in the interests of working people. For more information
contact Maurice Peret at 2525 Grand Avenue, Apartment 220, Des Moines, Iowa
50312.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Voyager XL CCTV, 19-inch black and white, magnifying device for
those who need to read and write for long periods. Separate camera and adjustable
monitor, includes typewriter attachment, good condition, $500. Please contact
Amir Rahimi at 425 S. Oak, Apt. 208, Arlington, Texas 76010, or call (817) 460-5005.

Drink Recipes Available in Braille:

The National Federation of the Blind
of Minnesota has for sale in Braille only a drink book, Potent Potables. There
are drink and punch recipes for all occasions, including NFB Tea. Send a $4.00
check to NFB of Minnesota, 100 E. 22nd Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 53404.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: I have for sale one Arkenstone Hot Card and one HP scanner, price
$500. Purchaser will receive a free screen reader. Please contact Stanley Lewis
at (510) 778-4881.

Elected:

Kerry Smith of the St. Louis Chapter
of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri reports its new officers.
They are John Dower, President; Daryel White, Vice President; Susan Ford, Recording
Secretary; Thelda Borisch, Treasurer; Anna Schell, Corresponding Secretary;
and Brenda Ford, Board Member at Large. Gary also reports that Daryel White
is recovering nicely after his recent kidney transplant.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: VersaPoint embosser, excellent working condition, has had only
personal use, Braille and print manuals, and original shipping carton, asking
$1,500 or best offer. Call Sharon Monthei at (612) 823-5066.

Liquidation Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Due to my departure from the United States, I am liquidating my
greeting card business and will sell the remainder of cards in stock at $.30
per card. The cards are made of white thermofoil with embossed images of flowers,
animals, and some Christmas motifs. Checks or money orders should be made payable
to Vera Honc. Cash is acceptable. Proceeds from this sale will help me to go
home at last. Send orders to Vera Honc, 600 Deerfield, #608, Gretna, Louisiana
70056, or call (504) 367-8826.

For Sale:

We have been asked to carry the following
announcement: Gourmet salad dressings, labeled in Braille and marketed by California
Federationist Carmela Cantisani, are now available. A contribution of $3 per
case will be donated to the National Federation of the Blind. You may order
Carmela's Gourmet Vinaigrette Authentique or Balsamic Vinaigrette at $33 per
case of twelve (mix and match possible) plus shipping by calling (800) 301-1151
or faxing your order to (408) 375-5313. Both vinaigrettes are made with 100
percent extra virgin olive oil, naturally aged vinegars, and other natural ingredients.
They make great gifts.

Minnesota History Tape Available:

Peggy Chong writes to say that the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota held its seventy-fifth annual convention
in October. To celebrate, a tape recording of sound bites from the past was
compiled and played at the banquet. That sixty-minute tape is now ready for
purchase. Included are the voices of Frank Hall, who attended the very first
NFB convention; Jacobus tenBroek; and many more. To get your copy, send a check
for $5 to NFB of Minnesota, 100 East 23rd Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404.